Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOUNDLING HOSPITAL SITE (COVENT GARDEN MARKET)

Miss WILKINSON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received applications for the removal of the Covent Garden market to the site of the Foundling Hospital; and whether, in view of the fact that there is no adequate open space in this crowded neighbourhood and that this land has been dedicated to the use of children for over 200 years, he will withhold his consent?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply to this question. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has not received any application in this matter, but he observes that notice has now been given for a Private Bill, and the matter will therefore come before Parliament.

Mr. SMITH ERS: Will the hon. Member or the Government use any influence or powers which they may possess, to see that the University of London have the option of purchasing this site?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is the hon. Member aware that the University of London considered this site for some time, and declined it?

Miss WILKINSON: Will the hon. Member's Department give full consideration to the fact that this is a very crowded area, and that there are no playgrounds for children within acres of this particular place?

Sir K. WOOD: No doubt my right hon. Friend will have regard to that and other relevant facts.

Commander BELLARS: Will the Minister of Health consider, with the Minister of Transport, when the time comes, the alternative of allowing railway companies to own the fruit markets?

Sir K. WOOD: That is rather wide of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TOBACCO, CIGARETTES AND MATCIIES (PRICES).

Mr. LUNN: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that since the inquiry under the Profiteering Acts in 1919–20 into the prices and profits from tobacco, cigarettes, and matches, the wages and salaries of consumers have been reduced by several hundred million pounds per annum; that the profits from the manufacture of these articles are very high; that the cost of production has been considerably reduced; and will he say what steps, if any, the Government propose to take to see that the prices of these articles are reduced, at least in accordance with the decrease in the official cost-of-living figures since 1919–20?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him on the 10th November last. I know no means of securing that the prices of individual commodities shall vary in accordance with either the collective incomes of consumers or with the general cost-of-living figure. I do not think that either of those standards could reasonably be used to determine the proper price of individual commodities without regard to the particular conditions of production and distribution and, I may add, taxation in each case.

Mr. LUNN: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the answer which I received a week or two ago, which related to an inquiry which had taken place in 1920? Does he agree that the conditions of the consumers to-day are similar, financially, to what they were in 1920?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have looked very carefully at the answer given
to the hon. Member, which addressed itself, not to the financial position of the consumer but to the rate of taxation charged in that particular industry. As the hon. Member knows, the great bulk of the cost of tobacco, unfortunately, goes into taxation, and that has not been reduced.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that last week one of the leading tobaccos was raised in price?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. Perhaps the hon. Member will find an Empire tobacco, and support it.

FOOD COUNCIL.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to introduce legislation giving further powers to the Food Council?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.

SUGAR-BEET FACTORIES (GUARANTEED CREDITS).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for guaranteed credits for the building of additional beet-sugar factories have been received this year; and whether, in view of the fact that the full sugar subsidy is now drawing to a close, it is proposed to grant under the Trade Facilities Act any such further guarantees?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): Three applications have been received other than those referred to in my answer to the hon. Member on the 9th November. The answer to the second part of the question is that the point is, I understand, under consideration by the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee.

BLAST FURNACES (OUTPUT).

Mr. SHORT: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will obtain figures from His Majesty's representatives abroad showing the output of blast furnaces in America, France, Belgium, Germany, and this country during 1925?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The information desired by the hon. Member
will be found in the current issue of the Board of Trade Journal at page 555.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

SHIPS (CONVERSION TO OIL-BURNING).

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of ships which have changed from burning coal to oil since the War, together with the tonnage of such vessels; if he can give the number and tonnage of ships built since 1918, together with the number and tonnage, respectively, of those built to burn coal and oil; and can he give the same particulars for ships now under construction?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is a rather long one, and the hon. Member will perhaps agree to its circulation in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the number of men displaced by the turnover from coal to oil?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question. I do not know, off-hand, whether there is any formula which can be applied. I very much doubt whether I can give him even an approximate figure. If he kill put down a question, I will see whether there are any figures.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the figures those vessels which have been reconverted to coal?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that. I am not sure whether the figures are available perhaps the hon. Member will look at the answer when it is circulated. There are a great many figures in the answer. If he wants any supplementary figures, I will see if I can get them.

Following is the answer to the first Question:

I find from the Annual Report for 1925–26 issued by Lloyd's Register of Shipping that, in July, 1919, the gross tonnage of steamers of 100 tons and over fitted for burning oil fuel was 5,336,678, and that the corresponding figure for July, 1926, was 18,243,539. The latter figure represents the tonnage of 3,576 vessels, including a number in which the
oil-burning equipment can be readily replaced on occasion by coal-burning fittings. I am unable to give the corresponding number for July, 1919, or the number and tonnage of the vessels in which a change of fittings may have been made during the period between the dates specified. The number of motor ships, including auxiliary screw vessels, which was 912 of 752,606 gross tons in July, 1919, rose to 2,343 of 3,493,284 gross tons in July, 1926, the increase being mainly due to new construction.

The Report in question also shows that the vessels built to Lloyd's class during the seven years included 6,487,412 gross tons built to be propelled by the medium of coal only, and 8,567,512 gross tons for oil fuel, including 1,642,442 gross tons of motor ships. The figures available relating to the totals of vessels constructed during the earlier years of the period are not exhaustive, but not less than 7,000 vessels, with an aggregate tonnage of somewhat over 22,500,000 gross tons were built. Of 477 vessels of 1,850,697 gross tons reported as under construction on 30th September, 171 vessels of 869,509 gross tons were motor-ships. I am, however, unable to state either the number or the tonnage of the steam vessels which are intended for propulsion by means of oil fuel.

AUSTRALIAN CARGO TRADE.

Colonel PERKINS: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the attention of his Department has been called to the difficulties in connection with the chartering of ships for the Australian cargo trade; and whether, in that case, he can take any action to adjust matters with the object of avoiding loss of tonnage to British shipping?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware of the differences which have arisen between shippers and shipowners in this trade. I understand that one matter, relating to the appointment of shipping agents, remains in dispute. I share the hon. Member's hope that this dispute may be speedily settled by mutual agreement; but I do not think the Board of Trade could usefully intervene.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statistics show that foreign ships are getting into the Australian trade more than they did in the past?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That does not arise out of the question, but if notice is given, I will see what statistics there are.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

PENSION'S DISALLOWED.

Mr. GARDNER: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War why pension has been refused in the case of Gertrude Phyllis Harrison, widow of the late John Percival Andrew Harrison, Sergeant, No. 1020803, Royal Tank Corps, and her three children under six years of age; whether he is aware that the late Sergeant Harrison enlisted as a boy on 3rd January, 1912, and died in the Military Hospital, Shorncliffe Camp, on 30th January, 1925, the cause of death being pneumonia; that Dr. John J. Proctor, late medical officer in charge of troops, Lydd Camp, certified that in his physical condition Harrison had no chance of recovery from the onset of the pneumonia and that his previous state was entirely due to his service and serious wounds incurred in the Great War; that Lieut.-Colonel W. Shannon, commanding officer, 3rd Battalion Royal Tank Corps, submitted to the court of inquiry a statement detailing the service of Sergeant Harrison overseas, noting that he had been wounded three times, once severely, and added that prior to his decease he was employed on company training at Lydd, during which period the weather was very cold, and it is possible that he contracted a chill, leading to pneumonia, through sudden exposure to the cold air whilst proceeding from one tank to another tank, the temperature in the tanks being very heated; and whether, having regard to all the circumstances, he will reconsider the decision to refuse pension?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The facts of this case have already been fully considered not only by the War Office, but also by the Ministry of Pensions and the Appeal Tribunal, and I regret that there are no grounds for reconsidering the decision that the grant of a pension is not admissible.

Mr. GARDNER: Is it not now the policy of the War Office to refuse to acknowledge any pensions in all cases of chest troubles?

Captain KING: No. Each case is considered on its merits.

INVALIDING BOARDS (TUBERCULOSIS).

Mr. ROBINSON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War what instructions have been issued to invaliding medical boards with regard to accepting tuberculosis of the lungs, pneumonia, and other chest complaints as due to service?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Instructions as to the circumstances in which disabilities will be regarded as attributable to military service, are contained in paragraph 220 of the Regulations for the Medical Services of the Army, 1923, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.

Mr. ROBINSON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War if a man in receipt of pension for a post-War disability receives treatment allowances for himself and family when admitted into hospital for treatment of his disability; and, if not, whether any provision is made for the maintenance of the family while the man is undergoing treatment?

Captain KING: Treatment allowances are not paid when a post-War disability pensioner is admitted to hospital. But he continues to draw his pension during his treatment, and it is the custom of the Department to waive any claim against that pension in respect of the cost of his maintenance while in hospital.

UNDERGROUND SHELTERS (VENTILATION EXPERIMENT).

Mr. THURTLE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he can make a statement as to the object of the recent action of his Department in sending a company of soldiers into the London postal tube and keeping them there for a number of hours?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The experiment was designed to furnish data regarding the ventilation required under certain conditions in underground shelters, such as dug-outs.

Mr. THURTLE: Was it undertaken with a view to finding out information for the provision of shelter for the civilian population in the event of air-raids?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Not exclusively. Both the military and the civil population will be subject to somewhat the same conditions. The experiments were intended to provide some information with respect to ventilation.

RECRUITS (BOYS).

Mr. THURTLE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of lads under 18 recruited for the Army during the six months ended 31st October last?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: 962 were recruited as boys.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these lads fully understand the nature of the calling?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes; the bulk of them were being trained at Chepstow for the tradesmen classes in the Army. Some were drummer boys, and I think every drummer boy knows what his calling is.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITS).

Mr. SHORT: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of recruits who have enlisted in the Territorial Army during November and December, 1925, and each month during 1926?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

Number of recruits who have enlisted in the Territorial Army during November and December, 1925, and during the months January to October, 1926:


November, 1925
…
…
1,846


December, 1925
…
…
1,632


January, 1926
…
…
1,883


February, 1926
…
…
3,476


March, 1926
…
…
4,507


April, 1926
…
…
4,005


May, 1926
…
…
3,146


June, 1926
…
…
3,955


July, 1926
…
…
2,872


August, 1926
…
…
930


September, 1926
…
…
1,263


October, 1926
…
…
1,167

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FARM WORK(CHILD EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. MAXTON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has given his approval to a by-law of the Kincardine-shire Education Authority permitting children of 10 years of age to be employed in farm work?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): The answer is in the negative. The position is that the Kincardineshire Education Authority applied to my right hon. Friend for sanction to the deletion from their by-laws for the employment of children of the minimum age at present laid down therein for seasonal employment, namely, 12 years. Aster correspondence with the authority, he intimated that he would, in view of the considerations which they urged, be prepared, with reluctance, to sanction a by-law prescribing a minimum age of 10 years for seasonal employment subject to review in the event of advertisement of the proposed by-law revealing a. serious body of objection to it. The proposed amendment of the by-laws will now require to be advertised with an intimation that objections may be addressed to my right hon. Friend within 30 days by any person affected.

Mr. MAXTON: Am I to understand that the reply is not in the negative, but in the affirmative, and that the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to sanction the employment of children of 10 years of age, provided there is no local objection raised?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not think there is any quibble in it. The question is, whether he has given his authority, and the answer is that he has not given his authority. It is conditional on there being no objection to the proposed alteration.

Mr. MAXTON: If there is no objection raised locally, he will give it?

Mr. R. MORRISON: With respect to the last words in the answer, which say that objection will only be considered from people whose interests will be affected, will the Lord Advocate say exactly how far that limits the class of persons who may object?

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is clear that any person affected may object.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the Lord Advocate say whether the Government are agreeable that the same principle that is now laid down may be applied to the Government's signature to the Washington Convention?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is another matter.

ERIBOLL ESTATE (SALE).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received the Report of the arbiter for the sheep-stock valuations at Eriboll, and whether he will place in the Library, for the information of hon. Members interested, copies of the missives of sale under which the Board of Agriculture purchased the estate and farm of Eriboll and copies of the missives of sale under which the Board sold the estate and farm of Eriboll?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend does not consider it necessary to take the course suggested. He has already undertaken to give the hon. and gallant Member the result of the arbiter's award when it has been made.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Surely, if this House is responsible for the administration of this estate, we have a right to know the terms upon which the transaction has been concluded? Further, why has the arbiter not reported before now in view of the fact that he made his valuation on 14th October—more than six weeks ago? Why is there all this concealment and delay?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am net aware that there has been any concealment at all. Of course my right hon. Friend would he answerable to this House for sanctioning the sale, and he has already stated that as soon as the transaction was completed, he would be prepared to answer any questions upon it. That was his answer to a supplementary question on 16th November last.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman said he would answer any questions, but cannot we have the actual terms of the transaction upon which we can put questions? There is no use putting questions if nobody has the facts.

HOUSING SCHEME, GLASGOW (WAGES).

Mr. T. JOHNSTON (for Mr. NEIL MACLEAN): 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the present wages rate per hour of the labourers employed on the Sandy Hills housing scheme, Toll-cross, Glasgow, is the rate paid in the building trade or civil engineering; if the latter, which class or grade are they classified in; and whether he can state the classification or grade and rate of pay per hour for similar work in Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The rate paid for unskilled surface work is 1s. 1d. per hour. Labourers engaged on the more skilled work of laying and jointing pipes are paid an additional 2½d. per hour. The civil engineering rate for Glasgow is 1s. ld. per hour, and for Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham, ls. 3½ per hour.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are three firms operating on this particular scheme, and that one firm alone—Messrs. Weir's firm—is paying ls. ld. per hour, while the other two firms, namely, the Atholl firm and the Cowieson firm, are paying Is. 3½d. an hour for the same labour; and will he undertake to look into this question and see that the Fair Wages Clause is observed?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The answer is that I Personally am not aware of it, but I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the question.

Mr. KELLY: From what source has the Lord Advocate obtained his information that the civil engineering rate for Glasgow is the figure stated by him?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I got that information where I get all such information—from the Office. If the hon. Member desires any more details I shall ask him to give notice of a further question.

Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that no rates have been fixed by the civil engineering industry for any part of Scotland?

The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir, I am not Personally aware of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAMWAYS AND OMNIBUSES (PASSENGERS' FACILITIES).

Mr. GARDNER: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consult the Traffic Advisory Committee with a view to arranging for the tramway and omnibus authorities in London adopting the Parisian system, which enables passengers in the order of their arrival at busy stopping places to hoard tramcars and omnibuses by the use of numbered tickets affixed to lamp standards?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Consideration has been given to the suggestion that the system in vogue in Paris whereby passengers boarding omnibuses and tramcars do so in the order of numbered tickets obtained from lamp standards at the various stopping places, but I am inclined to the conclusion that this system will not suit London conditions. As a practical objection, it would have the effect of slowing down both omnibuses and tramcars very considerably.

Mr. GARDNER: Surely the right hon. Gentleman and his Department have not made many observations in regard to this system. Is he aware that there is no slowing down where it is in operation, and that under the present system with the great congestion of passengers, the aged and the infirm have to go to the wall. What objection can there be, in view of the fact that the police will not permit queuing up at busy tram stopping places?

Colonel ASHLEY: The conditions in London are not the same as the conditions in Paris. The lay-out of Paris is very different from that of London. In the case of London, generally, there are many instances IA here omnibuses and tramways of several routes have common stopping places, and there would be very considerable confusion and certainly delay.

Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an experiment in some busy place?

Colonel ASHLEY: I will consider that suggestion.

Colonel DAY: Several routes have a common stopping place in Paris.

Colonel ASHLEY: My answer is that the lay-out in London is very different from that of Paris.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the traffic in Paris moves considerably quicker than the traffic in London?

Mr. GARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an experiment at Hammersmith Broadway, where people have to tight for omnibuses and trams on cold and wet nights?

BISHOP'S CASTLE RAILWAY.

Colonel DAY: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the permanent way, bridges and rolling stock of the Bishop's Castle (Salop) Railway; when this line was last examined; and is he satisfied that adequate public safety is assured to passengers travelling on this line?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have been informed by the manager of this railway that fresh passenger and goods vehicles have recently been purchased; that a considerable section of the line has recently been inlaid, and that, in his opinion, the line is at present in a better condition than it has been for many years. I have no reason to suppose that public safety is not adequately secured.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the metalling of the line has worn away to half the normal gauge, and will he ask the manager to look into the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: The manager informs me that he considers the public safety is adequately safeguarded, but if the lion. Member desires it, I will draw his attention to the specific question he has raised.

NEW ROAD SCHEMES.

Captain STREATFIELD: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport how many new road construction schemes have been authorised by his Department during the current financial year, and, of these, how many involve grants of over £250,000 and £500,000, respectively?

Colonel ASHLEY: 59 new road and bridge construction schemes (mainly diversions of existing roads) have been authorised by this Department during the current financial year. None if these involves a grant of over £250,000.

TOLL BRIDGES.

Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport how many bridges there are connecting up first or second class roads in England on which tolls are charged, and what are the maximum tolls charged on such bridges on motor cars and other classes of traffic?

Colonel ASHLEY: According to returns made by highway authorities two years ago, there were then in England 24 toil bridges on Class I roads and 20 on Class II roads. The highest toll for private motor cars was 2s. 6d. and the lowest 2d. Owing to the complete want of uniformity in the classification of vehicles and traffic adopted on different toll bridges, it is not practicable to state the maximum tolls for every category of traffic. Some of the schedules include calashes, barouches and other unfamiliar forms of transport. The complete tabular returns, which are somewhat Voluminous, are deposited in my Department, and I will gladly give every facility to my hon. and gallant Friend to consult them.

Sir G. WHELER: If the local authority which has charge of these bridges puts forward a reasonable scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of making a contribution from the Road Fund so that the bridge may be made free for vehicular and other traffic?

Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly, that is one of the powers given me by the Act of 1925, but as far as I can remember no definite proposal has been put to me by a local authority. If they do, I will certainly consider them, and also the particular instance which the hon. and gallant Member has, I think, in mind.

Mr. TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge that in fixing the price at which these toll bridges are to be acquired he will see that the purchase price is not fixed on unreasonable tolls, wherever they are charged, that they will not be used in such a way as to extort an unreasonable price for purchase from public funds?

Colonel ASHLEY: I never give Parliamentary pledges; they are most undesirable things. But I will scrutinise any agreement arrived at between a local authority and the owners before I give a grant.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one case a local authority submitted proposals for a bridge built 125 years ago at a cost of £12,000, which was to he acquired for £130,000?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir; the proposal has not yet come officially before me.

ARTERIAL ROAD, CHERTSEY.

Sir W. de FRECE (for Sir NEWTON MOORE): 24.
asked the Minister of Transport the present position of the scheme for the arterial road to Chertsey; and whether he is now able to justify the hope expressed to a delegation of local authorities which he received on 25th May, namely, that work on the road would probably he commenced by October. 1027?

Colonel ASHLEY: A section of he new Chertsey Road in Chiswick is already completed, including the bridge over the railway—to all of which works assistance has been given from the Road Fund. Elsewhere land acquisition is in progress, but as far as actual works are concerned, I can take no decision until the Report of the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic in London has been presented and considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

IMPERIAL PENNY POST.

Mr. HAYES: 25.
asked the Postmaster-General when it is proposed to re-introduce penny postage in this country and throughout the Empire?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I regret that I am not in a position to make any forecast on the subject.

Mr. SHORT: Can the Postmaster-General say whether this question was considered at the Imperial Conference?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I must have notice of that.

Commander BELLAIRS: The right hon. Gentleman throughout his speech was very ambiguous, because he said that. it was relegated to the dim background of the future.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to saying whether this matter was the subject of discussion at the imperial Conference?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: None whatever, but I must have notice.

PRINTED PAPER: (BULK RATES).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 26.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has received representations regarding the weight of parcels containing printed papers which are sent overseas; and whether he proposes to increase the maximum weight from 5 lbs. to 1bs?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The 5 lb. limit of weight fixed for packets of printed papers sent to other parts of the Empire is already greater than the limit of 2 kilogrammes prescribed for the International Service generally by the Postal Union Convention; and there are serious difficulties in any general extension of the limit. Arrangements are, however, in existence whereby newsagents can, under certain conditions, send bags of printed matter paid at bulk rates of postage direct from their premises to their agents in various parts of the Empire, and I have had these facilities brought to the notice of the firms possibly concerned in the representations to which my hon. Friend refers.

PARCEL POST.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of foreign countries which only accept parcels weighing a maximum of 11 lbs., and the names of the Dominions, Crown Colonies, and Protectorates a hick limit them to the same weight?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The limit of weight is still 17 lb. for postal parcels sent from Great Britain to 10 foreign countries and their colonies, and to certain colonial possessions and two other countries. The same limit is in force in the case of Australia, South Africa, Rhodesia and eleven other British possessions.

Mr. RAMSDEN: Would my right hon. Friend say whether efforts are being made to induce these countries to accept. parcels up to 22 lbs. weight?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The difficulty arises from the fact that certain of these countries are not able to deal with parcels of this size.

CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 28.
asked the Post-master-General the number of parcels
carried to date under the cash-on-delivery system, and the number refused for nonpayment?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The number of inland cash-on-delivery parcels posted up to the 20th November is approximately 632,000. No later figures are available. About 14,000 have been undeliverable for various reasons, including that of non-payment. It is not possible to say how many were undeliverable for this reason alone.

BETTING DUTY (TELEGRAMS AND TELEPHONES).

Sir W. de FRECE: 29.
asked the Postmaster-General if there is any diminution in the Volume of telegraphic and telephonic business dealing with betting matters since the introduction of the Betting Tax; arid, if so, whether he will state to what extent?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have no data upon which to form any precise estimate as to the effect of the Betting Duty upon the Volume of telegraph or telephone traffic. There has been no noticeable effect upon the telegraph or telephone revenue.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one firm alone has discontinued over 80 telephones, and whether he will ascertain the loss of revenue and the increase of lawlessness and confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member did not catch the last sentence of my reply, which was "there has been no noticeable effect upon the telegraph or telephone revenue."

Sir C. RAWSON: If I bring some evidence to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, will he consider it?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, but I must remind the hon. Member That this is only an infinitesimal fraction of the whole.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE.

Mr. ROBINSON: 30.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many meetings of the
Special Grants Committee have been held since 1st April. 1926; what was the time spent on the work of the Committee by the permanent civil servants who are members of the Committee; and what arrangements are made to carry on their work in their respective departments?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The Special Grants Committee and its sub-committees have met on 42 occasions since 1st April last. I am unable to state the amount of time spent on the work by the two permanent civil servants who are members of the Committee, but it has nut necessitated any arrangements of a different kind from those which are usually made when civil servants are called upon to serve on Committees.

SANATORIUM TREATMENT, WEST RIDING,

Mr. FREDERICK HALL: 31.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he has been informed that the West Riding County Council is prepared to reduce the charges made in respect of sanatorium treatment of children of War widows and disabled men if the Ministry of Pensons will re duce the deduction of 50 per cent. taken from the pensions of the children while under treatment in a sanatorium; and whether he will consider the desirability of entering into an arrangement with the local authorities, so that in every case the parent shall receive not less than 3s. a week of the child's allowance or pension, after the Ministry deduction and the contribution to local charges is paid, for the purchase of boots, clothing, etc., and the payment of fares and incidental expenses when visiting a child in a sanatorium?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am aware that the suggestion referred to in the first part of the question has been made. The reduction by one-half of the child's allowance in such cases is, however, imposed under the terms of the Royal Warrant because more than one-half of the cost of the child's maintenance in the sanatorium is provided from State funds other than those administered by the Ministry of Pensions. I should have no authority to make such arrangements as are suggested by the hon. Member in the last part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLAIMS (CULTIVATION IN BRITISH WATERS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department could afford advice as to any sections of the British coast being found suitable for the introduction on commercial lines of the trans-Atlantic shellfish known as the clam?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The Ministry has no practical experience of the cultivation of clams. The American clam does exist in British waters, and I shall be glad to arrange an interview between my hon. Friend and our shell fishery experts, who will give him what information they have on the subject.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: If that is the fact, with tens of thousands of Americans Colning here during the season would it not be worth while to develop this delicacy on a commercial basis?

Mr. GUINNESS: We have no information as to the commercial possibilities. Our information is only from a biological point of view. If the hon. Member would like to visit a district where they are available, he could no doubt sample them.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I remind my right hon. Friend that I have learnt from Washington that it is perfectly possible to grow this delightful bivalve here, and may I bring him information on the subject?

Mr. SEXTON: Can the right bon. Gentleman inform us, in case he establishes these clams, that they will not be subjected to the Merchandise Marks Act?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is proposed that they shall be established in British waters, and there is no question of the compulsory marking of home products.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is it not better to let the Americans know the very much higher quality and value of British shell fish?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: They are not in season in the summer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXI-CABS (WEATHER SCREENS).

Mr. HANBURY: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department
whether, in view of the danger to health from cold and wet due to the insufficient protection afforded to taxicab drivers by the present inefficient glass screens, he will consider amending the Regulations so as to allow glass screens to extend from the floor to the roof in front of taxi-cab drivers, provided a mechanical squeegee cleaner is fixed to the glass in front of the taxi-cab drivers using such extended screen?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): My right hon. Friend sympathises with this suggestion, but is advised that the risks involved to the public would be too great.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL AIRWAYS (PASSENGER STATISTICS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many persons have been carried by Imperial Airways during the past 14 months and the approximate number carried by the civil plane services of Germany during the same period?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The number of passengers carried by Imperial Airways, Limited, during the year ended 31st October, 1926, was 16,635. I regret that no information is available in regard to the numbers of passengers carried by German civil air services during the corresponding period.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Ls it not a fact that the number carried by the Germans is far in excess of ours?

Sir P. SASSOON: I have not the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE-AIDED SCHOOLS (FOREIGN LANGUAGES).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether opportunities are given to children in the State-aided schools for acquiring a knowledge of foreign languages; and which languages are they enabled to learn?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): As the answer is long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Yes, Sir, French is taught in a number of central schools, and, in a few such schools, German and Spanish are taught. In secondary schools French has a regular place in the curriculum, and some secondary schools provide for the study of German, and, to a lesser extent, of Spanish, Italian and Russian. The importance of a knowledge of the spoken, as well as of the written, language is not overlooked, and a pass in at least one foreign language is required for a pass in the first schools examination. Further, in evening classes, in commercial schools and in the commercial and language departments of polytechnics and technical schools, young persons who have left School have opportunities for studying languages, those principally taught in these schools being French, German, Spanish and Italian. For fuller details I would refer my hon. Friend to Table 98 of the Board's Statistics of Public Education, 1920–21, and to Table 103 of the corresponding Volume for 1924–25.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).

Sir G. WHELER: 37.
asked the Attorney-General the number of advisory committees where the members are not subject to election or re-election for six years; and why it is not possible to apply the principle of election to all advisory committees at once?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The members of 253 advisory committees in England and Wales, excluding Lancashire, and in Scotland are not yet subject to reappointment by the Lord Chancellor at a fixed date, but it is his intention to apply the system to those committees as and when an opportunity is afforded by the occurrence of vacancies or in some other way. If the system were applied to all the committees at once, it would be necessary to dissolve the existing committees and to make exhaustive inquiries as to the persons to be appointed in their place, and the Lord Chancellor does not consider that this course is necessary or desirable.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the right
hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) is eligible for re-election to any of these committees?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot say, as I do not know.

Sir G. WHELER: 38.
asked the Attorney-General with whom rests the power of election or re-election of members of county and borough advisory committees for the recommending of persons suitable to become Justices of the Peace?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The power of appointing or reappointing members of county and borough justices' advisory committees rests solely with the Lord Chancellor, and in Lancashire with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman been informed of the result of the most recent of all elections at Hull?

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Lord Chancellor receives nominations from individuals, from individual Justices of the Peace or Benches of Magistrates, or from organisations for these appointments?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I must have notice of that question. I am only answering for the Home Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARBITRATION (GREAT BRITAIN AND HOLLAND).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what answer has been given to the proposal for all in arbitration recently received from Holland?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): At the time when the proposal was received for an extension of the arbitration arrangements the Netherlands Minister was informed that His Majesty's Government would prefer to renew the existing Convention for a period of five years, but with the substitution of the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague for the Permanent Court of Arbitration as the tribunal to which disputes were to be referred.

Mr. SMITH: Do I understand that there was a definite offer made by the Government of Holland for arbitration?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I practically said so in my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the ambassador appointed by the Soviet Government to succeed M. Karakhan in China has been prevented from proceeding beyond Harbin; and whether His Majesty's Government has made any protest against his being refused admission to China?

Commander BELLAIRS: Is this question in order? It concerns two foreign Powers, and does not concern us at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: The last part, which asks "whether His Majesty's Government has made any protest," brings it into order.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have no official information confirming the alleged incident, which would in any case constitute no occasion for intervention on the part of His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS (UNIFORMS).

Colonel DAY: 42.
asked the Minister of Health what action has been taken by his Department with a view to abolishing uniform for inmates of Poor Law institutions in favour of ordinary clothing?

Sir K. WOOD: There is no law or rule requiring the clothing supplied by guardians to inmates of Poor Law institutions to be uniform, and the attention of the guardians has, from time to time, been drawn to the absence of need for uniformity, either in colour or material, in the clothing provided for the inmates of the institutions. They have been advised that clothing of inmates absent on leave from the workhouse should not he in any way distinctive or conspicuous in character.

Colonel DAY: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether any of the Poor Law institutions have allowed the inmates to wear their own dress?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member had better give me notice of that question.

Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that Luton has already allowed the inmates to wear their own suits or dresses?

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Gentleman says so, I am prepared to accept the statement.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that other institutions which are maintained by public subscription, such as the Quarriews Homes in Scotland, provide ordinary clothing?

Sir K. WOOD: I cannot answer any question relating to Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

LEGISLATION.

Mr. CLARRY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state his intentions regarding any further legislation in connection with the dispute in the coal industry?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on Wednesday last in reply to a Private Notice Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Lewes Division.

Mr. PALING: Mar I ask whether any decision not to proceed with other legislation with regard to mining, has been reached because the legislation already passed this year has been of such a calamitous character?

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE. (ARREARS OF CONTRIBUTIONS).

Mr. LUNN: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the long continued stoppage in the mining industry and the general state of trade, he will extend the period for the payment of arrears of contributions under the National Health Insurance Act from 30th November to 31st December or some later date?

Sir K. WOOD: In view of the coal dispute and consequent unemployment in various trades, my right hon. Friend has already decided that arrears may be accepted up to 31st January, 1927, in cases where a society is satisfied that the delay in discharging arrears is due to
financial difficulty arising out of the industrial situation. This decision is being conveyed to all approved societies.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE (NAVAL EXPENDITURE).

Mr. THURTLE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister, if, in taking note of the warning of the Admiralty that considerable increases in naval expenditure would be necessary in the future, the Imperial Conference considered ways and means of raising the finance necessary for such increases?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member is, no doubt, referring to the last sentence of the third of the Conclusions on Defence, in which it is stated that the Imperial Conference noted the statements set forth by the Admiralty as to the formidable expenditure required within coming years for the replacement of warships, as they become obsolete, by up-to-date ships. The question which he asks as to the ways and means of raising the finance necessary to meet this expenditure relates to a matter which was not one for the Conference, but is one for each of the Governments concerned.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the Prime Minister not think that if the Imperial Conference is to be accepted as an authority as to the amount of armaments required, it ought also to accept obligations in regard to finance.

The PRIME MINISTER: How could it?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (MARRIED WOMEN).

Colonel DAY: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider legislation having as its object the protection of male persons whose wives' earnings are such as to make them responsible at law for Income Tax in respect of the woman's earnings?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I have not vet had occasion to consider this question, but shall be ready to look into it.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only two weeks ago a man
summoned at the Willesden County Court informed the Court that he had no knowledge at all of his wile's earnings, because she would not disclose them to him?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are some anomalies in this matter, and, as I have said, I shall be ready to look into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Sir W. de FRECE: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the receipts from the Entertainments Duty at racecourse meetings in each week since the Betting Duty came into operation, together with the receipts for the same period last year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton on 29th June last, particulars of the yield of the Entertainments Duty paid in respect of different kinds of entertainments are not available.

Sir W. de FRECE: Is it, not possible to get this information?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I am advised that it is not possible to get it without an expenditure of money which I do not think is justified in the circumstances.

Mr. D. GREENALL: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Excise and Customs officer at Cardiff has refused to grant exemption from Entertainments Duty upon the proceeds of concerts run on behalf of distress funds at Barry, because a number of miners' families were included among the persons to be assisted; and whether he will instruct local officers that such discrimination should not be. exercised?

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I am not aware of any case in which exemption from Entertainment Duty has been refused by the Customs and Excise authorities at Cardiff in respect of entertainments promoted in aid of the funds mentioned by the hon. Member. If he knows of any case in which exemption has been refused, and will furnish full particulars, I will have inquiry made.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE FACILITIES ACT.

Mr. SHORT: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total losses sustained under the Trade Facilities Act?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to a question by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on the 11th November.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION GUARANTORS (INCOME TAX).

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with regard to the fact that guarantors to the British Empire Exhibition, who were also exhibitors, are permitted to make a deduction of the loss caused in respect of their guarantee from their respective returns for Income Tax purposes, whereas guarantors who were not exhibitors are not permitted to adopt this procedure, he will state why distinction is drawn between the two types of guarantors, and on what ground it is based?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Income Tax Acts provide that in the computation of a trader's liability a deduction may be allowed in respect of expenditure which, not being of a capital nature. is wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade. With regard to expenditure incurred under the guarantee to the British Empire Exhibition, to which my hon. Friend refers, the Inland Revenue authorities have acquiesced in the view that in the case of guarantors who were also exhibitors. such expenditure, as and when incurred, may be regarded as part of the current expenses of their business and treated on the same lines as the cost of advertising generally. In such cases, therefore, the expenditure would normally be admitted as a deduction for Income Tax purposes, but in the case of guarantors who were not exhibitors, the connection between their businesses and the exhibition is too remote, having regard to decided cases in the Courts, to enable Payments made under the guarantee to be treated as a business expense.

Mr. MITCHELL: Would my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of
placing all the guarantors on the same footing, in view of the fact that the guarantee was made in order to encourage British industry and not for charitable purposes?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; I cannot undertake to amend the Income Tax law to meet these particular cases. No doubt there appears to be some hardship, but it would be a difficult matter to alter the law to meet every hard case which from time to time might arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

STAFFS.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how the total number of persons now employed in Government Departments compares with the corresponding figure in November last year?

Mr. McNElLL: Particulars of the staffs of Government Departments are now published quarterly. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of Command Papers 2579 and 2759 containing the returns for the 1st October, 1925, and the 1st October, 1926, which will give him the latest comparison available.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: In view of the reference to the October circular, will the right hon. Gentleman state whether, having regard to the increases which have taken place in the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health, he is making efforts to get corresponding decreases in the other Ministries; and if not whether be is satisfied with the present position of affairs.

Mr. McNEILL: It does not follow that, because the work has increased in one Department it has correspondingly decreased in another.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is making efforts to reduce the staffs. I am not referring to the work.

Mr. McNEILL: We always endeavour to reduce the staffs to the minimum.

EX-SERVICE MEN (DISCHARGES).

Mr. PIELOU: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the state of the labour market at
the present time, he is prepared to defer until after Christmas all notices of discharge on account of redundancy now being issued to ex-service temporary clerks in the Civil Service?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 25th November to the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith).

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SUBSIDIES (CAPITALISED VALUE).

Mr. BOOTHBY (for Viscountess ASTOR): 43.
asked the Minister of Health the capitalised value of all the subsidies payable by the Exchequer on houses completed, under construction, or authorised under the Housing Acts of 1919, 1923, and 1924?

Sir K. WOOD: The Exchequer subsidy payable in respect of schemes under the Housing Act of 1919 depends on the rate of interest payable in future by local authorities in respect of their loans, and on other variable factors, and it is not, therefore, possible to state the capitalised value of the subsidies which will be payable. The amount paid by way of lump sum grants to private builders

Site.
Number of Houses.
Super Area.
Accommodation.
Contract Price.





Sq. ft.

£


Bracewell Farm
…
90
620
Living room, scullery, bathroom, 3 bedrooms.
362*


Do.
…
66
620
Living room, scullery, bathroom, 2 bedrooms.
362*


Nursery Lane
…
62
 From 620 to 722
Living room, scullery, bathroom, 2 bedrooms.
From 352* to 373.


Do.
…
54
Living room, scullery, bathroom, 3 bedrooms.


*Road and sewers are estimated to cost an additional £30 per house.

LOCAL RATES (LIABILITY).

Mr. BOOTHBY (for Viscountess ASTOR): 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can estimate the liability upon local rates for all houses built or authorised under the Housing Acts of 1919, 1923, and 1924, respectively?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply given to a similar question put by the hon. and gallant

under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, was £9,493,155. The capitalised value of the Exchequer subsidies which will be payable on houses completed, under construction, or authorised under the Housing Act of 1923 is £25,052,250 and under the Housing Act of 1924 is £25,773,750 for England and Wales.

MUNICIPAL HOUSES, HALIFAX.

Mr. BOOTHBY (for Viscountess ASTOR): 55.
asked the Minister of Health what is the accommodation and contract price of the municipal houses which he has approved to be built at Halifax that it is hoped to let at 5s. a week, exclusive of rates?

Sir K. WOOD: As the answer involves a tabular statement, T will, with my Noble Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following table gives particulars of the 272 houses which the town council of Halifax have been authorised to erect with Exchequer assistance under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924. My right hon. Friend understands that the rents which the town council propose to charge range from 5s. to 6s. a week, exclusive of rates:

Member for Gloucester (Lieut.-Colonel Horlick) on 31st March last.

Mr. RICHARDSON: How much have the local authorities been receiving in rates for the houses?

Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter.

Major Sir CLIVE MORRISON-BELL: Is there any truth in the statement that
45,000 more houses have been built under the Wheatley Act than under the Chamberlain Acts?

Sir K. WOOD: The statement is entirely new to me, and there is no foundation for it as far as I know.

Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to know that it is in the Labour candidate's election address at Chelmsford?

Sir K. WOOD: No, that would not surprise me.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Consolidation Bills,—That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider of all Consolidation Bills in the present Session do meet in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room To-morrow, at half-past Eleven o'clock.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Lords Message considered:

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.— [Colonel Gibbs.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

FERTTLISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL [Lords]:

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member
from Standing Committee B: Mr. Jenkins; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Major Elliot, Mr. Guinness, and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland: and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Atkinson, Sir Geoffrey Butler, and Sir Charles Oman.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Minister on complaint to enforce exercise of powers.)

(1) Where a complaint is made to the Minister (by any person or persons in respect of whom a county council have failed to provide a small holding) that the county council in question have failed to exercise their powers under the provisions of this part of this Act (in a case or cases where those powers ought to have been exercised) the Minister may cause a public local inquiry to be held.

(2) If after holding such an inquiry the Minister is satisfied that there has been such a failure on the part of the county council, the Minister may declare the council to be in default and may make an Order directing the council to do such things as may be mentioned in the Order for the purpose of remedying the default.

(3) An Order made by the Minister under this Section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.

(4) An Order made by the Minister under this Section shall be enforced by mandamus.—[Mr. Buxton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The House will remember that the former small holdings system, established under the Act of 1908, provided, as its main method, investigation by Small Holdings Commissioners, and not only investigation coupled with surveys, but action by the Commissioners, as a normal method of establishing small holdings. Now we have arrived at a further stage, when civilian holdings are to be set going again, and the Minister is proposing the very radical operation of abolishing the Small Holdings Commissioners altogether. I think he has spoken of divesting the Government of power in this connection, and the reason he gave for bidding goodbye to the Commissioners was that the situation had changed, that 20 years ago people were doubtful whether the county councils would show much concern about small
holdings, and that in subsequent years they had proved themselves willing to act, and, therefore, that experience showed we could do without the Commissioners. I submit that experience, though in many ways in that direction, has not been adequate to allow us to come to that decision, and I think we can test it in this way: If we ask ourselves what would have happened had there been no Commissioners in existence, it is very clear that the history of small holdings, meagre as it is, would have been very much more meagre still, and it seems to me that the proposal of the Minister is really dangerous. You do not know what might follow if any power of ginger were removed from the Ministry. The Minister himself might find, after a further term of office, that this Bill produced stagnation. Is not that really, from a perfectly non-party point of view, what is, if not likely to happen, what may possibly happen, and might not the House be filled with regret that unnecessarily all machinery had been removed which would supply the stimulus required?
It is not that county councils would resent coercion. It is not coercion; it is much more of the nature of machinery for bringing publicity to bear upon what is done in the counties. Without reflecting on the action of any backward counties, we all know that enthusiasm is apt to be very moderate indeed for the cause of small holdings in a great many meritorious counties, and surely everyone must see that this is a danger to be guarded against. Some machinery, whatever it is, is needed, and the machinery that I submit is a machinery adapted to the new situation. You might propose simply to leave the Act of 1908 in force, in so far as it supplies a system of Small Holdings Commissioners, but that would be, in phraseology at all events, rather contradictory to the spirit of the Bill, which rightly, in one respect, establishes now greater local option for the county councils. Cannot the Minister give us some plan fitted to the new situation which will guard against this danger, and, without a derogatory attitude to county councils, make it sure that publicity is secured and that there is not a bad breakdown of the new system? What I suggest is that we should have a system where the
Minister comes in as the responsible person, the Commissioners disappear, and you have a plan by which, in a flagrant case, the Minister might allow a public inquiry to be granted to local complainants, and that, following that, it should be possible for the Minister to take action and charge the county councils.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): In proposing this new method of compulsion, the right hon. Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) suggests that it is not really very drastic, but more in the nature of persuasion. Seeing that it includes the very extreme methods of mandamus, I really cannot agree. I am surprised that anyone with the right hon. Gentleman's experience of the happy relations which generally exist between Government Departments and local authorities could imagine that we should really get any advantage by such a method as he proposes. The Bill is framed with the object of working by a democratic method. We rely for the provision of these small holdings on the local authorities carrying out the wishes of the areas which they represent. It is quite true that, in the Act of 1908, Small Holdings Commissioners were set up, with very drastic powers, but in only one case were those powers used. In those days, the financial position of the local authority in providing small holdings was very different, and the whole scheme was largely experimental, but now, when 18 years' experience of the scheme has been gained, we believe that, with the generous terms which we are now offering to the local authorities, it will be wiser to rely on working the schemes by Parliament and local authorities both being responsible to their constituents, and both contributing their due share freely towards the provision of small holdings. I cannot, therefore, accept this proposed new Clause.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: It seems to me that the Minister has given no reason at all why there should be a distinction here between what the county councils are to do and what is already permitted to any six ratepayers in a local area—namely, to petition the Ministry in case a council has not provided the allotments that they think ought to be provided. There is no question here, I think, of any
mandamus. The Clause does not suggest that the Minister should necessarily agree to the inquiry. It says "the Minister may cause."

Mr. GUINNESS: Look at Sub-section (4):—
An Order made by the Minister under this Section shall be enforced by mandamus.

Mr. WILSON: Yes, but do not let us get on quite so fast. In the first place, there is an appeal to the Minister, and then, if, on the grounds of that appeal, the Minister be satisfied that an inquiry ought to take place, he may cause that inquiry to be held. But no Minister, I take it, would ever for one moment suggest or agree to the holding of an inquiry, unless he was perfectly satisfied that there were good grounds, and that the council acted in a reactionary manner. This is an entirely permissive Clause, and we are asking for the protection of the Minister against a reactionary county council. May I further point out, that it is not only in connection with allotments, but there have been repeated cases, as I pointed out in Committee, where the President of the Board of Education has been obliged to take action against education authorities who were not complying with what he regarded as the educational requirements for that particular district, and here we are only asking that there should be an appeal from the locality where people think allotments should be provided, and the county council have not acceded to that wish. We are only asking that some kind of appeal should be allowed, as in other cases.

Mr. FENBY: I am very much surprised that the Minister is not prepared to accede to this proposal, and is departing from a step which, I understand, ho has taken in regard to sheep scab, where an appeal is allowed. The Minister in opposing this new Clause said the small holdings would be worked in future by county councils and Parliament. What I would like to know is, what Parliament has got to do with the provision of small holdings, except to provide money when it is asked for by a county council? As far as any urge upon the county authority by a Government Department is concerned, there is going to be none whatever. I am never one to advocate unnecessary interference with an up-to-date local authority by a Government Depart-
ment, but there are certain authorities who may be regarded as backward in the small-holding movement, and the very class for whom small holdings are intended, that section of the community for which the Acts of 1908 and 1919 were put on the Statute Book, and the class which desires small holdings, is very sparsely represented upon county authorities, which will have to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act. It is very well known that membership of a county council is so expensive that a man without any financial backing of a union, or a man who has not considerable private means, finds it absolutely impossible to spare the time or loss of wage to attend county meetings, and to bear the cost of railway travel.
The Minister may say, "Well, but the Department appoints certain representatives upon the Small Holdings Committee." That may be true, but I am not particularly keen about the initiative taken by co-opted members on county authorities. Elected representatives are needed to push small holdings on local authorities. I can quite understand that with some county authorities a man does not stand much chance of getting a small holding, if he happens to be handling a snickle, that is not altogether a first-class testimonial for him to become the occupant of a small holding. As far as the administration of the Acts of 1908 and 1919 are concerned, my experience is that the powers in those Acts have never been fully exercised, but there has always been this urge behind the local authorities, that if there were a demand in an area, and the authority was not doing something reasonable to meet it, there was some pressure which could he put by the Government Department to see that the applicants received fair

treatment and consideration. In this Bill the small holding movement has been handed over completely and entirely to county councils. I have no objection, as long as they are of a first-class character, but some are very backward in regard to the provision of small holdings, and the very class for whom it is intended has the least representation on the county authority.

I think the Government are doing a very ill-service to people who desire small holdings in washing their hands altogether of any compulsory powers. In fact, if I may say so with all respect, the Government seem to be encouraging in county authorities a timidity which, unfortunately, the Government are exhibiting with regard to everything concerning a forward and constructive movement in the great agricultural industry of this country. I am very sorry the Government have run away from a position which was absolutely satisfactory under the Acts of 1908 and 1919.

Mr. KELLY: I think it is not only timidity on the part of the Government, but even a sign of bad faith as far as small holdings are concerned in the action which they are taking on this proposed new Clause. Surely the opportunity provided by this Clause should be in the hands of the Government where a county council refuses to do its best for those who are demanding small holdings. It will be for the country to recognise that the Government, while they are bringing forward such a Measure, are leaving out of it the opportunity to enforce the demand that is being made in all parts of the country at the present time.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 178.

Division No. 510.]
AYES.
[3.51 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Barnes, A.
Day, Colonel Harry
Hirst, G. H.


Barr, I.
Dunnico, H.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Batty, Joseph
Fenny, T. D.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Binn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Gardner, J. P.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Briant. Frank
Graham, Rt. Hon. Win (Edin., Cent.)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Bromfield, William
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)
Groves, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Grundy, T. W.
Kelly, W. T.


Charleton. H. C.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Clowes, S.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kirkwood. D.


Cluse, W. S.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Lawrence, Susan


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hardie, George D.
Lawson, John James


Connolly, M.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Lee, F.


Cove, W. G.
Hay day, Arthur
Lindley, F. W.


Cowan, D, M. (Scottish Universities)
Hayes, John Henry
Lowth, T.


Lunn, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Varley, Frank B.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R. (Aberavon)
 Scrymgeour, E.
Viant, S. P.


MacLaren, Andrew
Sexton, James
Wallhead. Richard c.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda)


March, S.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe
 westwood, J.


Maxton, James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Montague, Frederick
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Whiteley, W.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Murnin, H.
Stamford, T. W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)


Paling, W.
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Potts, John S.
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Purcell, A. A.
Taylor, R. A.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Windsor, Walter


Ritson, J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, plaistow)
Wright, W.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W.Bromwlch)
Thurtle, Ernest



Robinson, W. C. (York, W.R.,Eltand)
Townend, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Saklatvala, Shapurjl
Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyto, Lieut.-Colonel
Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Agg-Gardner,'Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Alexander, E. E, (Leyton)
Gates, Percy
Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Goff. Sir Park
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grace, John
Murchison, C. K.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grant, Sir J. A.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Penny, Frederick George


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bennett, A. J.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pielou, D. P


Blundell, F. N.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon a Rad.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hanbury, C.
Preston, William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bowyer, Capt, G. E. W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Raine, W.


Braithwaite, A. N.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rawson, sir Cooper


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rentoul, G. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Brocklebank, C. E. R,
Hilton, Cecil
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hoare, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Maj. D. C.(N'thTd., Hexham)
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Savery, S. S.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Holt, Captain H. P.
Shepperson, E. W.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng: Universities)
Skelton, A. N.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkinson, A. [Lancaster, Mossley)
Smithers, Waldron


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. u, M.(Hackney. N.)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Campbell, E. T.
Huntingfield, Lord
Stanley,Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl't)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm, W.)
lliffe, Sir Edward M.
Them, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jackson. Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Daikeith, Earl of
Lougher, L.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Maj O. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)1


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Drewe, C.
MacIntyre, Ian
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macmillan, Captain H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wise, Sir Fredric


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Macquisten, F. A.
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Elveden, Viscount
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Malone, Major P. B.
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Capt. D.



Fielden, E. B.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
14;


Finburgh, S.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Major Cope and Captain Lord


Foxcroft. Captain C. T.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stanley.


Fraser, Captain lan
Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to a county council to resume possession of a small holding without payment of compensation for disturbance in certain cases.)

"Where a county council is the owner of land let as an existing small holding and the tenant thereof is the occupier of other land which makes his total holding greater in area or value than a small holding as defined by this Act, and the land owned by the county council and leased from it by the tenant is required for the provision of a small holding, then the county council may resume possession of the land without incurring liability for compensation for disturbance under Section twelve of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923.—[Mr. Basil Peto.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. B. PETO: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is designed to remove what has been proved to be a difficulty in working the existing Small Holdings Acts. Certain circumstances were brought to my knowledge by the surveyor of a small holdings committee in a northern part of Devonshire. It is to people who have come into contact with the practical administration of small holdings legislation that we should look for guidance in our difficulties when we are passing an amending Bill. I am informed that instances have arisen in that part of Devonshire in which tenants of small holdings under the council have purchased or become tenants of other land, and that the aggregate of their land, that is, the land held as a small holding and the other land, is larger than the statutory definition of a small holding. I would remind the House that the size of small holdings is increased by this Bill, is, in fact, doubled; the maximum of £50 is increased to £100, which would make a similar addition in the acreage. In spite of that, however, the difficulties will continue to exist, and I will give the House one practical instance of a case to-day which illustrates exactly what I want to do by this Clause. The surveyor writes to me:
I have a case in mind at present where a tenant has 19 acres of ours and is, in addition to our land, farming 100 acres. Our only method of obtaining possession of the 19 acres is to serve notice, and pay compensation for disturbance, under Section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, of a sum approximately £40, a thing we cannot afford to do.
4.0 P.M.
That means, of course, the county council. The object of the Bill is to provide small holdings and not to provide increased holdings for people who are farmers and not in any sense of the word any longer smallholders. It appears quite clear that it would facilitate the progress of the movement if difficulties were not put in the way of the county council resuming possession of small holdings which are required by other bona fide smallholders by the provision of Section 12 of the Act of 1923, which, of course, provides for compensation for disturbance. I do not wish to deal at any length with that part of the question, but there is no question of doing away with any of the compensation to which the tenant may be entitled for improvements on the holdings. It applies only to compensation for disturbance provided by Section 12 of the Act of 1923. The House will notice that I have very strictly limited this New Clause to the specific case I have detailed to the House. I am not opening the door to the possibility of turning out people without compensation for disturbance. I am only giving power in certain specific cases under certain specific circumstances to a county council who are providing land for small holdings to be able to resume possession of land already let to tenants without paying, under the Act of 1923, compensation for disturbance.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to second the Motion.
I need not add anything to what my hon. Friend has said, beyond emphasising the point that compensation for improvements is not in any way touched by this Clause. It is simply compensation for disturbance, when the farmer is using the land for purposes not provided for, such as using it as part of a large farm instead of a small holding.

Mr. GUINNESS: My hon. Friends are proposing to make a very serious discrimination in the law against the statutory small holder. At present the statutory smallholders number about 30,000, and there are probably somewhere near 240,000 other holdings up to 50 acres. Under private landlords, if smallholders receive notice to quit for any reason except bad farming or a
breach of covenant, they are entitled to compensation for disturbance. The reason for that compensation is obvious. They are inevitably put to expense. The expenses are defined in Section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, as being those
in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods, implements of husbandry, fixtures, farm produce or farm stock on or used in connection with the holding, and shall include any expenses reasonably incurred by him in the preparation of his claim.
Why on earth should we withdraw that right from the statutory smallholder? If the tenant who rents 18 acres—to take the figures given by my hon. Friend—from a private owner, gets notice to quit just because he has other land bringing him above the small holding limit, nobody would dream of taking him out of the general law of compensation, and it does seem to me that the proposal of my hon. Friend would be a cruel penalty on just that class of successful smallholder whom we all want to encourage. He begins in a small way. He could not have got the small holding if he had had other land of that kind. Surely we do not want to punish him for taking that other land and making a success of his holding. I know there has been a good deal of feeling among officials of local authorities in connection with this matter, but I think they cannot have considered the result of the Amendment which they suggest. It was brought to my notice some time ago by a local authority, and I arranged for it to be considered by the County Councils' Association. I think we really ought to be guided by them in this matter. After a careful examination of the case, they did not see their way to endorse it, and I think my hon. Friend will be well advised to adopt the same view.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 1.—(Duties and power of providing smallholdings.)

Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the words "buy or."
This Amendment raises a point of view which we on these benches feel most strongly of all in regard to this Bill. We are not against small holdings; indeed, some of us pride ourselves that in days of Tory lethargy we tried to
rouse that public opinion which helped to bring about the Act of 1908. Far be it from any of us to hamper a genuine small holdings movement. I object to this Bill, because it is markedly a Measure for establishing owners. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear"!] I am very glad that is generally admitted. We need not waste time over that. I should be the last to attribute any unworthy motive, but it certainly appears to me that there is a marked bias, evident on every page of the Bill, in favour of creating owners, which does not seem to me to harmonise exactly with the pure desire to encourage small holdings. The bias is too evident. I shall have something to say on that side of the matter when we come to the Third Reading, but for the present I want to confine myself to the merits of the thing, and the desirability of devoting most of the machinery of the Act to encouraging owners. The State is to devote a very large sum to creating private owners, and the loss which is anticipated, and which probably will be something like three-quarters of a million will be borne by the taxpayer. Is it really fair that the taxpayer should subsidise a new class of private owners to this extent? We shall come shortly to the question of the basis of acquisition, the value to be given to the preceding owner, but it seems to me that at this moment we should rightly leave out this proposal to buy because it is wrong in principle. The freehold of the land, if we could get rid of prejudice and think only of the interests of agriculture, would he the property of the State. National land, whatever other objection you may have to it, is the obvious way to an efficient control of agriculture. I will not stop to argue that in extenso, but my experience leads me to believe it.
There is a more cogent and immediate reason why you should not encourage individuals to put their money into the purchase of land. In England you have a tradition of tenancy, and in that respect we have an agricultural asset of high value. In other countries you have a certain attachment to ownership. People cannot he led to keep their savings in order to put them into the capital required by the farm. Whatever they have is devoted to the freehold of the land as well as to the running of the farm. Surely it is a great advantage that we
have available as farmers men who have not capital enough to buy the land, but who can afford to stock it. Your object is to turn that man with small savings not only into a small cultivator but also into an owner. If you do, you diminish the number of men who are available for farming as tenants, and you artificially encourage those men to put their savings into a smaller total farming outlay than they would if they were to proceed as tenants in the normal English way.
There is another point. If these men have money enough to invest in land, are they not able to get land in the open market? Must you bring in the taxpayers, and say that this, unfortunate class is to make a dofe to help these men who might by common admission get land in the open market, and induce them to become buyers from a public authority at great public expense? Everyone anticipates that in the course of time there will be a rise in the value of land. There are many reasons for anticipating that. One is the belief, on the high authority of Sir Daniel Hall and many other world's agricultural experts, that the orld's provision of corn will become less and less proportionate to its needs. You are probably in any case, for a dozen different reasons, going to get an increase in values, and von will have people come forward more and more for land, because of this prospective rise. Are you, instead of making land public, going artificially to arrange that this increment shall accrue to a large number of private individuals? My main feeling, and surely it is universal, is that you have certain customs in this country as the result of long experience. You have the English method of tenancy farming, and I do not like the idea of doctoring that English tradition in order by main force to create a class of small owners. Why not leave the normal English plan as it is and make the best of it? The fact that a desire for ownership is not felt has been overwhelmingly proved by experience in the past in regard to small holdings. It is hardly credible to the public that, out of the 30,000 statutory smallholders, not mare than 500 have become owners of the land. They do not want to be owners. I believe there are 20,000 outstanding applications for land at the present time. Under the old Act there was a provision which might have
been used for this purpose, but there has not been a great demand for purchase. If there had been such a demand, the counties were in a position to meet it. I should like to know how many out of these 20,000 applicants have asked to become purchasers. I am told that in Scotland there are something like 10,000 applicants.
There is another strong argument arising out of the action of Conservative Governments in the past. Mr. Bonar Law appointed a Tribunal of Investigation, and the result was that it came down very strongly on the side of tenants, and surely the present 'Government cannot throw over the result arrived at by its own Tribunal. In short, you have a valuable asset in the rational qualities of the British cultivator, because he wants to save his capital for working the land, and he prefers to hire it. In these circumstances why do an un-English thing and throw away that valuable asset?

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman has recommended this Amendment on the ground that the Government proposals show a bias towards ownership. I do not agree with that argument. The Government proposals have, for the first time, offered equal facilities for renting or buying holdings. The principle of purchase in small holdings has been recognised in our legislation ever since the original Act, introduced by Mr. Chaplin, was passed in 1892. Each time this matter has been dealt with, more and more favourable terms have been given for renting, with the result that it had become practically impossible for the smallholder to face the unfavourable conditions which have been attached to purchase. The right, hon. Gentleman has told us that very little advantage has been taken of the opportunity of buying holdings under the previous Acts. Is that surprising, seeing that the smallholder had to buy, not at the written-down value which was the basis of the rent under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, but at the full market value, and seeing that in addition, under the 1908 Act, he had to pay a large sum of money down?

Mr. BUXTON: Will the Minister tell us what occurred under the previous Act, before the War?

Mr. GUINNESS: The difference was in regard to the basis of valuation, but there was the obligation to pay down a very large instalment of 20 per cent., and that naturally would cripple a man starting for the first time on a small holding, because he needs all his capital for his farming activities. This Bill avoids the necessity of paying that instalment. We are hoping by this Bill to abolish this inequality, and make things equal between the tenant and the purchasing freeholder. We are not proposing to do this by imposing harsh terms on the renter, but we have brought forward a scheme based on what is called the full fair rent, and we have based on that the purchase instalments. The purchaser of these holdings will be able to obtain a freehold on the basis of 60 years' full fair rent, plus the addition of responsibility for keeping up the structure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) suggested that this arrangement would be very unfair to the taxpayer, but I do not think there is anything in that argument, seeing that it is going to cost the taxpayer exactly the same, no more and no less, than if the whole thing were dealt with on a rental basis. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that this is a Bill that will establish owners. We do that deliberately, because we see the value to the State of peasant proprietors who know that their industry, the improvements which they make on their holdings, and the work which they put into their land are assured to themselves and to their children, and for these reasons we attach great importance to readjusting the scale on a fair basis as between the owner occupier and the tenant of the small holding.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I support this Amendment. The Minister of Agriculture has followed the line which he took when this Amendment was before the Standing Committee, where, either purposely or otherwise, he refused to face the main argument for this Amendment, and simply told us that so far as the State and the ratepayers are concerned there is no difference, financially or otherwise, whether we settle an occupying owner or whether we provide an extra tenant. That argument does not touch our case at all. Here we are, under the terms of this Bill, contemplat-
ing the provision of something in the region of 8,000 small holdings during the next four years, and the State will be called upon, according to the financial statement issued by the Minister, to meet an annual deficit of about £150,000. This land is to be purchased and used for the production of food. The Minister told us that as far as the State is concerned, there is no material difference between occupying owners and ordinary tenants. In my opinion, there is a very great difference. In the first place, it is an anti-social principle to provide Exchequer Grants or grants to be drawn from the ratepayers to establish absolute owners of land in this or any other country. To that extent the principle adopted by the Government is bad, and ought not to be adopted by this or any other Government. When an ex-Conservative Prime Minister sets up a Special Committee to deal with this and other agricultural problems, and their Report is published, I should like to ask the Minister what reply he has got to this recommendation made by the Agricultural Tribunal, dealing with small holdings, which says:
The system of purchase and ownership by the county council of the land and the leasing of it to smallholders seems to combine largely the advantages of ownership without its disadvantages, and the gradual extension of this experiment in public ownership of land is in itself desirable. At the same time attention should be directed to the alternative method of the public authority renting land by agreement, or if necessary by arbitration for the purpose of small holdings. If it is considered desirable to avoid the investment of public money in the purchase of land, this method might be adopted. We consider, however, that the system of public ownership is preferable.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give us his reply to that recommendation? Here we have a body of experts charged with the duty of examining the whole of this problem, and they issue a Report, and I have just quoted an extract from their Report. This Bill flies absolutely in the face of the Report of that Committee of experts. Therefore, if for no other reason than that, I am opposed to the principle put forward in this Bill. I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the fact that between 1908 and 1926, 30,000 small holdings have been provided, of which less than 500 have been purchased by the present tenants. The Minister of Agriculture says the explanation of that
is that under the 1908 Act one-fifth of the money had to be put down as a first instalment, and that proved an almost insurmountable barrier to the prospective smallholder. May I draw attention to the fact that the Minister in his explanatory Memorandum tells us that in effect they are refusing to grant loans to smallholders for farm purposes. OrigiNally one-fifth of the total value had to be put down before one could purchase. Now that he has no instalment to put down as was provided under the Act of 1908, he has to have a certain amount of capital for the purpose of working the farm, providing necessary implements and so forth. I think that disposes of the argument used by the Minister of Agriculture, and rather equalises the position as between this Bill and the Act of 1908.
I want to draw attention to another reason why I want this Amendment to be carried. The Minister of Agriculture has told us that the peasant proprietor is going to be a most valuable asset to the State. Some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues have said that every person we can plant on the land will become a little Tory. That may or may not be the case, but what I want to suggest is that on the back page of the explanatory Memorandum occurs a passage in regard to which if I put upon it a wrong interpretation, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will correct me.
Here is the passage referred to:
Another reason for the repeal of the Section referred to "—
that is the refusal in future to grant loans—
is that all the information received by the Ministry indicates that there is at present a demand from suitable applicants possessed of both agricultural knowledge and adequate capital, sufficient to occupy all the small holdings which it will be practicable to create under the Bill for many years to come.
If it be the fact that the present applicants possess both agricultural knowledge and adequate capital, why do they not of their own free will enter the ordinary market and secure land for themselves, without coming to the Government and asking for a subsidy which, according to the financial statement—

Mr. GUINNESS: I was referring to the farming capital, not to the fixed capital.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Farming capital is not mentioned in this explanatory Memorandum.

Mr. GUINNESS: This loan will be entirely for farming capital; it is not for the purchase of land at all.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman cannot dispose of the actual wording of this Memorandum, where it states that there are sufficient applicants at the moment with agricultural knowledge and adequate capital to occupy all the holdings that are likely to be created under this Bill for many years to come. What does that imply? How many agricultural workers shall we have who, while they possess the agricultural knowledge, have also got adequate capital to enter on one of these small holdings? Does not that rather lead us to this point, that when the county councils are going to determine which one of two or many applicants is going to secure a holding, it is always going to be the person with the adequate capital, who can purchase, while the rural worker is not going to get a ghost of a chance under the terms of the Bill? The very idea of providing £25 per annum—according to the financial statement, £100 for each holding for the first four years—to make the holding the absolute property of an individual, is anti-social at its base, ought not to be done by any Minister of State, and ought not to be supported by any Parliament in any part of the world. Tenancies we might very well create with advantage to the State, but to create ownership, losing any sort of social control over the financial grants that the nation is about to make, and the grants that are to be drawn from rates, is totally wrong. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think about the mentality of the future smallholder, he has failed to submit one solitary argument in favour of his policy that the State shall buy small holdings and hand them over to individuals. The purpose of a Small Holdings Bill of this description, if it has a purpose at all, ought not to be to insist upon county councils developing into all sorts of buying and selling agencies, involving them in all kinds of intricate financial problems. Their duty should be to provide land for agricultural labourers who have the requisite knowledge and who can use it to the fullest advantage for the increased production of food in this country, and generally to make us more
self-sufficient than we have been up to this moment. For these reasons I would ask the House to accept this Amendment, to eliminate the possibility of State money going to make absolute owners of land, and to allow the Bill to go forward to create as many tenancies as they like.

Mr. FENBY: I should like to support this Amendment, for, perhaps, different reasons from those put forward by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I am not convinced that it is an evil thing for the worker to own his holding, but the position in the country at the moment is based upon the theory, and this has evidently been the reason for putting in this purchase Clause, that peasant proprietorship would be a very good thing for the country. My objection to the Clause, however, and the reason why I am supporting this Amendment, is that the experience of the legislation introduced in 1908 by the Government, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was a member, has proved that it is not purchase that is required, but security of tenure so long as you pay your rent and farm your land as provided under the Act of 1908. It will take more than one person to say that this Clause shall he operated. The Minister and his Department will have nothing whatever to do with it. They have, shall I say, beaten a retreat, and are not going to have anything whatever to do with small holdings in their present form. I do not know whether they are ashamed of the movement to which they are rendering lip service. I will not call this Clause eyewash, because that is a term which I do not like, but it does seem to be painting the scenery in rather a glowing fashion so that people may fasten their eyes upon it rather than upon the performance on the stage.
If the Minister would take as much notice of the opinion of the County Councils' Association on this Clause as he professed to take in regard to the previous Amendment moved by one of his supporters, I am certain he would not put forward the Clause. No county council will push the purchase Clauses of this Bill. They have had experience of that matter, and anyone who knows anything about agriculture and wants to become a real smallholder will not apply
to have the purchase Clauses put into. operation, because he knows that if he is an ambitious man—and it is the ambitious man who wants to be a smallholder—he does not want to stay on 50 acres, but wants to go further, and to let his holding be a stepping stone to larger things. It was pointed out in Committee that there are large areas of agricultural land in this country that cannot be farmed on a. 50-acre basis as small holdings, but can only be farmed successfully, from the point of view of the country and of the tenant, in large farms, where you can have a fallowing system and all that kind of thing. There is also a large amount of land which is suitable for small holdings, and we want those small holdings to be on the Liberal principle of security of tenure so long as you pay your rent and farm your land properly, and not to tie people down and let them fasten their money in the land by purchasing it, but to let them use it to produce as much food as possible out of the land.
I wonder what my hon. and learned' Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) thinks about the operation of these purchase Clauses. I venture to suggest that by his own Amendments he is indicating that, while the Minister renders lip service to the purchase Clauses, he is hedging and fencing them round with such prohibitive restrictions that they will be absolutely unworkable and ineffective, and that it will be impossible for any county authority to put them into operation. I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider what is the real object and motive for providing small holdings. It is not to get a man to put his entire capital into the purchase of his holding, so that he has no money for the cultivation of the land. So far as my experience is concerned, ownership does not produce a single stone more of food than occupancy under proper terms of tenancy, and if the right hon. Gentleman will inquire of his own advisers, he will find that the experience of the War executive committees during the War was that the man who had to be prodded, the man who had to farm under the instructions of the War executive committee, the man who had to have his farm farmed by the War executive committee, was not the man who was a tenant, but the man who was an owner. When you come down to scene-painting and scene-shift-
ing from a political point of view, and the timid attempts of the Government to deal with the real land problem as we know it on this side of the House, if it is not known on the other side, we beg the right hon. Gentleman not to go on playing about with things that he knows very well will never be operative, but to do something that will make a success of the small holdings movement, that will put men on the land who are anxious to cultivate 50 acres, and, when they have made a little money by good cultivation, to move off and cultivate 150 acres, which is the real object of the small holdings movement.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I am amazed at the deductions from his own experience which have been drawn by the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby). The House is probably well aware that, living as he did in the East Riding of Yorkshire, the hon. Member has had an experience of the working of small holdings that is probably equal to none in this House. Those small holdings have been very successful for three reasons. In the first place, the best land was taken; secondly, only men with capital —men of experience—among the rural workers were selected; and, thirdly, the farms were properly arranged as economic units and were well supervised. The deduction which the hon. Member draws is that the success of those small holdings is a support for tenancy, and that is the reason why he advocates tenancy, and tenancy only. He does not tell the House, however, that every one of those tenants not only paid, in his yearly contributions, the rent of the holding, but also that a proportion of the amount paid went to form a sinking fund to repay the capital cost of the holding. The sums so paid did not go to the benefit of the tenant himself, but to the benefit of the county council. I appeal to anyone here whether these small holders paid that money willingly, or whether every one of them would not rather have paid his contribution for the purchase of his own land, so that, if he were successful, he should have the value of the money in his holding to leave behind him for the benefit of his children or his family, or, in the case suggested by the hon. Member, if he wanted to go on to a larger holding, he should be able to
dispose of his existing holding and then take a larger one.
I submit to the House that the whole of the hon. Member's experience is an argument for the provisions of this Bill. I would ask any other hon. Member who has been about in agricultural districts whether the one complaint of smallholders against our small holdings legislation has not been that they were compelled to buy the land for the county council instead of for themselves. I myself have had a good deal of experience among landowners and farmers, and I am convinced of this, not only from what I have heard them say, but from experience in other countries. Experience in France, which is full of peasant proprietors—owners of their own land, every particle of which is cultivated in the highest degree—and every experience we have had, shows that the fact that a man owns his own land, and that every bit of labour that he puts into it inures to his own benefit and that of his wife and family, is a very big incentive to him to make that land as well cultivated and as productive as ever it can be. The attraction of this Bill is that it is providing for the first time an opportunity to the poor man to become the owner of his own land instead of merely an occupier. The hon. Member opposite says it is quite wrong in principle to use State money to enable an individual to own land. Why should it be right for the townsman to be able to acquire his house with the benefit of public money and not for the rural occupier to become the owner of his land with public money? I see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) opposite. Has there ever been a word urged by him in the many years that he has been in the House that under the land purchase scheme for Ireland that it was wrong for the Irish tenant to become the owner of his land on principle? The one thing the Irish tenants wanted—and they were all agriculturists—was to satisfy their land hunger and become the owners of their farms. The one reason small holdings can be justified in this country is to gratify that access to the land which unfortunately has been denied so long.
Is anyone here hardy enough to suggest that small holdings are an economic proposition? Where you have farms picked out, where you have the best land
in the district, where you have markets handy, where you have that careful selection of men, of capital and knowledge and skill, selected as they were in the East Riding—go to Evesham, where you have the best root producing land in the country, where you have special qualities in the soil and special markets —they may be successful, but the figures that have been spoken to to-day prove that small holdings are uneconomic. After 30 or 40 years of this legislation, the pushing of it and the gingering up of Parliament not only from one side but both sides of the House, when all these efforts have been bestowed on the creation of small holdings, if you leave out the special efforts made by the Land Settlement Act, 1919, the number of small holdings to-day is no larger than it was 25 years ago. I except the men who were settled on the land after the War, because we are all agreed that was special legislation. It has not been successful but it got an artificial number of men on the land as a recompense to our soldiers for their services. If I am right in these figures it shows that the tenancy system of our present Small Holdings Acts is not all that we want. They are not achieving their object and we ought to look further. The late Minister of Agriculture said purchase has not been wanted. We have had it for a number of years and the reason it has been a failure is that the man of small means could not afford it. How could they pay the large deposit that was required? They could not do it. That killed the purchase system. They did not have to pay anything like that in Ireland. Under the 1919 Act it was only 10 per cent. This Bill takes what is a fair rent and allows the man to become the holder, dependent on the instalments being paid off, on the security of the land itself and for the first time there is being given this further driving power, to satisfy the desire of the man to become the owner of his holding at a reasonable cost.

Mr. WA LLHEAD: This sudden conversion to the principle of ownership by cultivators is an entirely new thing as far as the Conservative party is concerned. They only discovered the value of ownership on the part of the cultivator when they discovered that more money could be made by investing their money in
industry than in agriculture. The Conservative party in the past has always been based upon the ownership of large estates by the aristocracy, who violently objected to the breaking up of the larger estates until economic conditions compelled them. I am inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend that there is some political fear behind the present movement for the creation of ownership. I object to this because the whole thing is anti-social in its tendencies. The hon. Member who has just spoken has told us of the obstacles in the way of working men investing money in land. The figures are eloquent from that point of view. Generally speaking, there is not among men who are expert agriculturists sufficient money to put down for purchase and at the same time to stock their farms. The Bill affords no means whatever of providing loans to men who want land. It is simply to advance money for the purchase of the land, and there is. nothing for them to start their holdings with. I agree that it is an attempt on the part of the Conservatives to buttress up the principle of ownership in order to provide a bulwark against what they call the coming of Socialism.
It is not much use introducing legislation to prevent economic changes, which I am sure these things cannot possibly prevent, and which is going to cast, in the meantime, a burden on the State and on the men who are induced to put their money into this occupying ownership. It is bound to fail until provision is made for the effective marketing of goods. Men not only want some assistance in the growing of commodities, but they want to send them to market. They want protection from the people who control the markets. Evesham has been mentioned. A short time ago I saw a letter from a fruit grower at Evesham. He said, "I recently sent a pot of William pears to market weighing 72 pounds, and they realised 2s." I quoted that letter in the House, and on that very day William pears were selling outside at 3d. and 4d. each. He could neither pay wages to the men who worked for him nor get a living for himself after paying his land charges. The men want protection. They do not want tying down, to ownership. If they are going to be assisted to get on to the land they can do so equally well under a guaranteed
tenancy under the public authority, but they want protecting so far as marketing and transport are concerned, and if Parliament is really going to help agriculturists to get on to the land they would do better to bring in a comprehensive scheme which will cover them all the way round than this mere tinkering, which does no real good at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: The hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) says the result of the 1908 Act proves that there is no desire on the part of cultivators to become the owners of their small holdings. Before that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) had quoted the Report of the Tribunal set up by Mr. Bonar Law, and I should like to refer him to page 200 of that Report. I will quote a very short extract:
In addition to these temporary measures it is desirable that the terms of purchase under the Act of 1908 should be reconsidered.… Foreign schemes give easier terms in the first years of occupation, the proportion of purchase money paid being in some cases only a half of what is required in England. The purchasing Clauses were regarded as an important feature of the Act when it was passed, and their failure, taken in conjunction with other facts, shows that their demands are too severe.
I agree with this extract from that Report, that the lesson of the failure of the Act of 1908 was not that there is no desire or demand for ownership. It is that the demands made were too severe, and this Bill for the first time makes it possible for a man to become the owner of a small plot of land without putting down a large sum of capital to start with. Hon. Members opposite, I think, are quite right in saying there are many cases where farmers who have become the owners of their farms—many compelled to do so against their own desire—have suffered because they have had to sink capital in purchase which otherwise would have been available for the cultivation of the farm.
The position under the Bill is different from that. The position of the prospective purchaser of a small holding is different from the position of a tenant under the 1908 Act only in so far that under that Act he paid a Sinking Fund plus the rental value, bought the small holding, and at the end of that time it
became the property of the County Council. The only additional amount the prospective purchaser as opposed to the tenant has to put down is what is commonly known as the landlord's outlay. That does not represent an amount of capital year by year, which would be very great if it was to be used for the purpose of the cultivation of that small holding.
Another point emphasised by hon. Members opposite is that we do not require men to own the land so long as they are given complete security of tenure as tenants. When I examine the Labour report on their policy, issued a short time ago, I am rather doubtful as to the value of that complete security to the tenant, if by chance we should ever live to see the day when the Labour party are in office again, because it contains these words:
Present agreements, customs and conditions of tenancy will continue under public ownership so long as may be thought desirable.
5.0 P.M.
To my mind that makes the security of tenure of the tenant a much more doubtful proposition than the security of tenure of the man who actually owns his own land. We on this side of the House believe that there is a very great deal of truth in the words which were written about the end of the 18th Century by a prominent writer on agriculture, when he said: "The magic of property turns sand to gold. Give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock and he will turn it into a garden." [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may jeer at that, but there is a great deal of truth in it. Other countries on the Continent have proved it to be a fact. Hon. Members opposite state that there are certain countries, and they mentioned Denmark, which found ownership undesirable and have given men possession as small tenants rather than as owners. I do not think, however, that the facts are as hon. Members opposite have stated them. Two Acts were passed in Denmark in 1919, which created tenants of small holdings; but the land which was so dealt with was either parochial land or glebe land and the areas affected were only something like 10,000 acres altogether.
After four years' experience of that, Denmark is reverting again to the system of providing land for smallholders who are to be the owners of the land they till
and not the tenants. When we look at the actual number of smallholders who own their land in these countries, we can only draw the conclusion that they have found ownership to be the right and successful system. In Denmark, 95 per cent. of the small holdings are owned by the men who farm them. In Holland, over 56 per cent. of the holdings are farmed by the owners, and in Germany the proportion of occupying owners is over 86 per cent. We on this side welcome the Bill as providing for the first time means whereby the small man can become the owner of a small holding without being compelled to sink the money which will be useful to him in cultivating the land. We do not believe the result of it will be, as an hon. Member opposite said, the creation of a great number of pestiferous little landowners, but that it will have an important and valuable effect, a stabilising and steadying influence throughout the whole country.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The importance of this Debate has been due not so much to the actual fact of the introduction of these words into this Bill, but rather because a very large issue has been raised by the Minister of Agriculture and by hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the other side, that is, the question whether we are to institute peasant proprietorship in this country or not. I do not believe this Bill will have very much effect in the establishment of small holdings, and the percentage of peasant proprietors which it creates will therefore be a small one. But the principle is a very important one. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) challenged me because of the action I took with regard to Irish land. I may say that I was very doubtful about the Irish Land Purchase Act, and I took no active part in it one way or the other, either in criticising or in supporting it. But may I point out to him the difference that exists. In the Irish Land Purchase Act there was provision made for the purchase of land in Ireland by the tenants, as far as I can recollect, at 12½ years' purchase.

Sir ROBERT LYNN: Oh no, more than that. It ranged from 12 years to 27 years, practically.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was about to say that there was some land that ran to
a higher figure. But what land would you get anywhere in this country at 12½ years' purchase? I say that a very considerable quantity of the land in Ireland was at a very low number of years' purchase.

Sir R, LYNN: I think the average was about 23 years' purchase.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman knows that country, and if he says the average was 23 years' purchase, I quite accept it; but the basis of it was a very considerable reduction of the rents in Ireland, a reduction which had gone on for a very considerable number of years, from 1881 onwards. There were wholesale reductions of rent all over Ireland, some of them very arbitrary, and the money was advanced, as far as I can recollect, at a very low rate of interest.

Sir R. LYNN: 2¼ per cent.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: And, in addition to that, the State gave a bonus of a considerable sum.

Sir R. LYNN: £12,500,000.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me the facts. He is a Daniel come to judgment. But is it conceivable to have a transaction of that kind in this country?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why not?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman were speaking on behalf of his party, I would close with him. In. Ireland you had a Court set up to revise the whole rents of the country; you had arbitrary reductions in many cases, you had purchase money advanced at the rate of 2¼ per cent, and there is £12,500,000 advanced straight out of the Treasury without any return at all. It is no use taking the case of Ireland unless you have a similar arrangement with regard to this country.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I only referred to Ireland as justifying the principle of using State money to purchase land for the holders.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: But the principle depends entirely upon the application. If the hon. and learned Member claims that it has been quite a success in Ireland, which I doubt, I do not think that he has established his case.

Sir R. LYNN: It has been a success absolutely.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will not be drawn into that matter, but I want to put it to the hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Lynn) that, if it has been a success in Ireland, that is because it has been completed under conditions in Ireland which no one would propose to apply to this country. No one is going to propose to cut down rents as arbitarily as you have cut them down in Ireland. Whether it has been a success or not in Ireland, it has been a success because you have been able to establish it at very low rents, at basic rates in regard to the rents; and very low rates of interest for the borrowed money. It is no use taking the case of Ireland unless you propose a similar transaction here, and you cannot do it. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Sir R. Lynn) that the average is 23 years' purchase in Ireland. I doubt if you could get land in this country under 25 years' purchase.

Mr. GUINNESS: 22½ years' purchase is the average.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Taking it at that, you multiply £100 rent by 22½ years' purchase.

Mr. GUINNESS: It is 22½ years net.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman does not know the elements of the problem. When you speak about a number of years' purchase of land, it means upon the gross. That has been the whole trouble between the other side of the House and ours. Our point of view is that you ought to proceed upon the net, and if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that that is a right thing to do, then I claim him as a brother and a friend.

Mr. GUINNESS: I am not dealing with what is right or otherwise; I am dealing with the facts.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman clearly is under the impression that at the present moment you deduct the whole of the outgoings when you come to years' purchase. There is management, which is 5 per cent.; there is, in addition, repairs, which are about 20 per cent. since the War; that is 25 per cent.; there is, in addition to that, the taxes and the tithe rents. He will find
that there is only £05 left out of every £100, and that is putting it very high. Does he say that he can sell a farm when all you have got is 22½ years' purchase upon £65?

Mr. GUINNESS: That is what the local authority has been paying on the-average for this land. That is my information.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. I am speaking as a Solicitor who had considerable practice at one time in the, country, and I know that the years of purchase were upon the basis of the gross rental and that when you come to the net rental it runs to over 30 and sometimes 35 years' purchase. If you take the net rent—I believe that is the fair thing to do, but you do not do it, and that is one of the difficulties—the tenant would have to pay £2,250 upon the basis of 22½ years' purchase. At 5 per cent. that comes to £112. In addition to that, he has to pay the whole of the repairs. That is the difficulty which has arisen up to the present whenever a tenant farmer begins to buy his land. You met it in Ireland by the low rate of interest, and by the enormous reductions in rent from year to year, which took into account the fact of the tenant making the repairs. Therefore, you had the true basis in Ireland before you began to compute the years' purchase; but here yon have not the true basis. That is why you will find it an expensive transaction, and, when tenants of small holdings do not buy, they know that fact, and they know that it does not pay them. I will give another reason. In Scotland you have had the same system substantially as in Ireland of fixing rents and gibing statutory security of tenure. There is no demand for purchase there among the tenants who have all those conditions. In Ireland, you had a demand because you had a continuous conflict between landlords and tenants, partly racial, partly traditional, very largely religious. There, it was found necessary for the peace of Ireland to bring the whole system to an end. In the case of Scotland, where you have none of these conflicts, so long as you give the tenant farmer security of tenure and give him a fair rent, I found that there was a strong opposition to any policy of land purchase in Scotland at all. They may or may not have pre-
ferred the county council as the landlord, or the State as landlord, but that is not what they were concerned about chiefly. What they were concerned about was that all the money they had to spare should go into working capital en their farms, and that they should not have to sink it in the purchase of the freehold.
Take the proposal of the Government. You will find that with £100 rent, even with an advance of nine-tenths, the tenant farmer has to find £120 or £130. He has to pay the lawyer. You cannot get rid of the lawyer in these matters. The moment you do that, you have to pay for stamps, and you have to borrow from the bank. There is anything from £100 to £150 for the smallholder to find. It is as much as he can do to find working capital for running his farm. There is no doubt about it, that where you have a good estate, where the rental is a fair one, where men can remain there generation after generation upon the farms without ever being turned out, where they know from experience that they will get fair terms, and where they know that if they cultivate the land well, nobody will raise the rent against them—any man would prefer that to owning the land himself. That is the case with the county councils. The county councils do not interfere with their tenants. I do not know a case of an unfair eviction on a county council farm.
It is all very well for my hon. Friend to talk about what may happen when the Labour party are in power. I do not believe that any Labour party or any other party dare incur the obliquy of turning out a good tenant from his farm for political reasons. If I were a candidate on the other side, there is nothing better that I would like than to see the other party committing that gross electoral blunder. He ought to encourage it now if he wants to have an electoral advantage. But it is not done. A Tory county council, or a Liberal county council, or a Socialist county council may come to the conclusion that a man more or less of their way of thinking is necessarily a more intelligent man, and, therefore, a better farmer. I have seen that with Tory landlords, and Tory agents. That is only human nature. But I do not believe that you will find that any party would commit the first-class error of turning men out of their
farms, when they are farming well and decently and paying their rent, merely for political reasons. The result is, that once you become tenant of a county council your security is absolute.
The hon. Member has quoted the case of Denmark. He says that they have gone back upon the Act of 1910. If he says so, seeing that I have not verified the facts, I accept the statement which he makes; but it is no use quoting the case of Denmark and imagining that it is comparable to this country. It is no use even quoting the case of Ireland and imagining that it is comparable to this country. Denmark and Ireland are purely agricultural communities; this country is not. Even if we revive agriculture in this country, as some of us hope to see it revive, we shall never quite make this country an agricultural country in the sense that Denmark and Ireland are agricultural countries. The mere fact that we have coal in such prodigious quantities in this country will always make this an industrial country, and the fact that we have such gigantic seaports here will make this an industrial country in the main. There is a great difference between handing over the land of a country in a purely agricultural community to people who have been there and who constitute practically the whole industry of the country, and doing it in a country like ours, where industry is constantly encroaching upon the land, and where, whenever it does encroach upon the land, you will be creating fresh difficulties in the way of the acquisition of land by multiplying smallholders all over the community.
There is another reason why you cannot do it in this country. If you go to Denmark, you will find that, in the main, it is a country of small farmers. I should say, quoting from memory, that certainly 75 per cent. of the land of Denmark is owned by farmers who cultivate less than 100 acres. I should be very much surprised if it is not cultivated by farmers who cultivate 50 acres and less. I am not sure about Ireland, but I think to a very large extent that state of things is true of Ireland. Therefore, when you are creating freeholds there, you are creating a large number of small freeholds. What would you be doing here? I should say that one-fourth of the cultivated land of
England is cultivated by a few thousands of tenant farmers. You would simply be handing over one-fourth of the cultivated land of England to 7,000 or 8,000 freeholders. At any rate, it is not a very large figure. If the Minister of Agriculture will look at the figures he will be amazed to find how few are the farmers who between them cultivate about one-fourth of the land of this country. To do that, is to perpetuate an inequality which would make the creation of small holdings almost impossible. It is very difficult to get small holdings now, when the land is only owned by, it may be, 20 or 30 owners in a particular community. If you multiply these freeholders, you will find that to get a small holding scheme through a county council would be next to impossible. Therefore, it would he a very great mistake.
Something has been said about France. I should like to know whether the hon. Member who mentioned France has really gone carefully into what is happening in France. Ownership in Denmark is new. It is a matter of the last 50 years. It has not been really tried and established. It gives complete security of tenure to a generation; but what has happened in France? What has happened in France is that, you are practically basing the land of France upon money-lending. You find that. a. tenant farmer has to make provision for one son, or it may he a daughter who is married to a farmer, and he has also to make provision for another, and sometimes a third. The farm is charged in order to raise money. The result is that very often on these small farms in France people are living under conditions which nobody in this country would ever tolerate. The land of France, in spite of the fact that there is a very industrious peasantry, is not producing anything comparable to its fertility—nothing like it.
The fact of the matter is, that up to the present you have only had a conflict of two systems. One is ownership and the other is tenancy under conditions that do not give security of tenure. The third system has not had a fair trial. It did not have a fair trial in Ireland because of long historical reasons which have nothing whatever to do with the industrial or economic question. There is no other country where the system of
security of tenure has had a sufficiently prolonged experience in order to demonstrate its superiority over the system of land owned by the cultivator, or the other system. Wherever it has been tried upon good estates it has been successful. The difficulty with regard to ownership is that you cannot enforce good cultivation. It is essential in this country that we should increase the production of food. We must do that by giving security to the man that whatever money and effort he spends upon the land, he and his children will get the full benefit. We must also give him security that all the capital which he has, he puts into working the land and not into dead capital, such as the purchase of the freehold. We must also have the condition that the occupation of land should be subject to the legal obligation to cultivate. If we do not do that, we shall never raise cultivation in this country.
We are buying food in increasing quantities every year. I have called attention in this House, repeatedly, to the returns of the Smithfield Market. I wish the Clerk of the Corporation had sent a copy of that document to every Member of Parliament. Although hon. Members might not come to the conclusion that the schemes which my hon. Friends of the Labour party advance, or the schemes which I propose are good schemes for dealing with the problem, the document might rouse them to an appreciation of the importance of the urgency of the problem. There is not a week which does not show that we are buying four-fifths of our meat from abroad to feed the population of this great Metropolis. We are buying that meat not from the Empire but from abroad. Last year, we bought, I think, thousands of tons more than we did the preceding year in spite of the fact that trade was worse. What is wanted in this country is some scheme that will increase production. You will not increase production by forcing a man to divert his capital so that he has not capital for properly working his farm, and he has to borrow it from the bank. You start him on the money lending business, and then give him land without any condition at all with regard to cultivation.
The scheme of smallholdings has, on the whole, been a success where it has
been tried under conditions of tenancy. The hon. Member said, "Ah! but you have picked tenants. You have picked land." These men, picked tenants and skilled tenants, according to the hon. Member, have been there for years upon the land and have never thought it worth while to buy their land up to the present. They are just the men, who, according to his own description, would do it if they thought it was to their advantage. They found it to their advantage to put the whole of their money into working capital, instead of buying the land. The right hon. Gentleman is on the wrong track because he has got wrong facts. I ask him to consider very carefully whether it is not better for him to encourage cultivation, with good sound security of tenure, rather than enter into this new venture which will never be successful in England whatever it has done elsewhere.

Sir R. LYNN: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, my knowledge of agriculture is of the practical kind, whereas his is simply that of a politician. As he has said, quite fairly in his speech, I do not think we can compare the question of agriculture in a country like Ireland, where there is a large number of small holdings, to the position of agriculture in England, where there are many large holdings. The only point I want to make is that so far as agriculture in Ireland is concerned, nothing has done so much good for the country as the making of peasant proprietors, and I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the fact that he is trying to make peasant proprietors in England. Wherever it has been tried, in the north, south, east and west of Ireland, it has been a huge success. I know of what I am speaking. I know everything about agriculture from A to Z, having been brought up on a farm; I know all the difficulties of landlords and tenants. It is one of the things that the Socialist party do not know anything about. They are always talking about agriculture, but if you were to present them with a farm they could not cultivate it. I hope the Minister, with the experience of Denmark and every other country, and especially of Ireland, will go ahead, and make us many peasant proprietors as he can.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, and quite rightly, that as long as a. man does not own his farm, there is always a trouble that he will not cultivate it to the fullest extent. We have had that experience for 150 years in Ireland. Somebody, like some of the multi-millionaires who are now leading Socialists, would go out to Monte Carlo and lose a pile of money, and, then send a letter home to his agent telling him he must increase the rent of the farmer. The right hon. Gentleman says that the man who cultivates his farm best is the man who has the heaviest penalty imposed upon him, and for that reason I want to see every farmer made the owner of his farm. I do not see how a county council can carry out farming operations better than the average farmer, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself could carry out farming operations better than the experienced farmer. I think he is modest enough to admit that. The one thing for the farming industry in this country is to make as many peasant proprietors as you can. You will then find that farming will develop; farmers will take a greater interest in their work; and, after the experience of Ireland, if you make a man an owner of something, no matter what it is, it will certainly be an advantage.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: There have been one or two allusions from the other side to the poor man. The lion. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) said that this Bill was going to be a real benefit to the poor man. I do not know quite what kind of poor man the hon. and learned Member had in view, but it would have been an advantage if, in addition to the one side of the cost which is shown in the Financial Resolution, we had had a memorandum showing the income of a poor man and what he would have to be able to pay in order to become an owner. I should like to refer to some figures given during the Debate when the Agricultural Wages Bill was introduced in 1924. Certain particulars as to the budget of a farm labourer were given and it was shown that out of a communal wage of 24s. a week, after the various expenses had been met, there was only ¾d. per meal left over for each member of a family consisting of the husband and wife and five children, aged
from two years to eleven. I am sure that no Member of this House would desire to perpetuate a state of affairs where there is only ¾d. per meal left over. Wages have increased since then, but *she figures will still be altogether too low.
In the course of the same Debate Mr. George Edwards, who was then the Member for South Norfolk, gave details of the family budget for the week preceding that in which the Debate took place. He gave the whole of the items of the budget of a farm labourer, whose total income was 23s. 7d. per week. He showed that during that particular week coal cost 5s., bread 4s., beef 3s. 6d., milk is. 8d., butter 1s. 6d., and sugar 1s. 2¼d., for a man and wife and three children, and that after these expenses and others had been incurred there was 2s. 1½d. left to enable the man to meet rent, boots and clothing, for a family of five. As I have said, wages have increased since then, but there is no hon. Member who would suggest for a moment that this is anything like sufficient to maintain a proper standard of life for a farm labourer or anybody else. And even if wages have increased, they have not increased to such an extent as will allow for anything in the way of an increase in rent, or enable the farm labourer to provide the 10 per cent. towards the cost of his holding, and subsequently to contribute towards the rent, plus Sinking Fund for 60 years. These figures, which have never been contradicted, do show the utter impossibility of a poor man ever being able to provide funds in order to buy his small holding.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: We have heard this evening of the experience of small holdings in Denmark and Ireland, and, if I may, I should like to speak from my experience of small holdings in England. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said that what we want in this country is production. I absolutely agree with him in that, and I submit that this Bill, in so far as it. encourages ownership by the smallholder, will increase production upon small holdings. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) referred to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, that there was no material difference between a
small owner and a smallholder who was an occupier. He disagreed with the Minister, and I agree with him in disagreeing with the Minister, because there is a difference, a great difference, between a smallholder who is an owner, and a smallholder who is an occupier. If he went into the part of the country that I come from, which has a greater number of smallholders in proportion to its size than any other county in England—Ely—he would find the difference between a smallholder who is an owner and the smallholder who is a tenant.
The smallholder who is merely a tenant naturally, during the term of his tenancy, endeavours to get as much as he can out of his holding, but the smallholder who is an owner, or likely to become an owner, has a different outlook upon his small holding. It is in his interests to maintain the fertility of the holding, and he will put into it artificial fertilisers for the one purpose of improving the fertility of the soil, because he himself will be the gainer. He will constantly work to improve the small holding, and therefore produce the greater quantity of foodstuffs. As far as my experience goes, I am perfectly convinced that a small holder who is likely to become an owner is more efficient, more energetic in his holding than a man who is merely a tenant.

Mr. MacLAREN: Since the beginning of this discussion there has been a constant evasion on the other side of the House of the direct question which was put to them during the more exciting days of 1909 and 1911, and I want the Minister of Agriculture, therefore, later on, if he will, to endeavour to reply to the question. Is it a fact that land will produce food best while it is rented by the tenant, or when the person who is cultivating it has to drive himself to the Bankruptcy Court in order to try and buy it? Grass will grow on the land quite irrespective of the conditions of tenancy or ownership of the soil. The argument put forward all through this Debate is that there is something magic about ownership which makes a man put more into the land than he otherwise would do. Let us look at the contention for a moment or two. I wonder if hon. Members opposite fully appreciate the argument that lies behind that statement.
Why is it that in the past men have been diffident in extracting out of the soil every ounce of its fertility when the land did not belong to them; diffident of exerting every ounce of strength when it was not their own property? The hon. Member who has just spoken has referred to Ireland, and said that it was the insecurity of the tenant and the enormous powers of the superior landlord that made him unwilling to put all he might into the land. That is unchallengable. Hon. Members opposite seem to dissent, but in Ireland the more an Irish farmer or agricultural labourer put into his land the higher his rent became in consequence, until you brought about the condition of things in Ireland in which the landowner became the lifelong enemy of the man on the soil. It was because of tyranny and the exactions of superior landlords that the tenants refused to put their best work into the land. It was in proportion to the amount of ownership established that they certainly became more interested in the soil, in using it. But hon. Gentleman opposite should be the last to cheer such a statement. It was only a desire to escape from the tyranny of the old landowner that made many small land users wish to become owners in Ireland. It is now unchallengeable that, given security of tenure—this has not been met—with no fear of a superior landowner making exactions on the user of the soil, a man will take as much, if not more, out of the land than he would by running himself into the Bankruptcy Court and in expending money to secure a piece of land—money that might be used to develop the land.
There is another argument which is insisted upon here, as it was insisted upon upstairs. It is with regard to Denmark. I want to take this Denmark business in hand for a moment, because there is a lot of slack talk about it. You cannot compare Denmark with this country in, this matter. In Denmark users of land for more than two centuries have been subject to a certain form of tax, and that tax has had a strange economic influence upon the owners of the laud of Denmark. Until you appreciate that fact, it is hopeless to drag into this House any comparison between Denmark and this country. Every user of land in Denmark was subject to what was called a hard corn tax. It was imposed
after scientific analysis in a very crude manner years ago. It was imposed upon the land in this way. An examination of the soil was made, and it was computed how much hard corn could be produced from the soil, and the owner or user of the land was subject to the tax whether he produced that amount of produce or not.
The net result of a century or more of the influence of that tax was to compel the tenant to take the best he could out of the soil, because he was subject to the tax annually. In later years they changed this crude form of hard corn tax into a tax which would compare with what is known in this country as a site value tax. In this House and in Committee upstairs we have been treated to the argument that in Denmark there are so many more smallholders than in England. Of course there are. But I would remind the Minister that Denmark has this year and last year been busily promoting two Bills to transform the hard corn tax into a site values tax, and that every user of land in Denmark at the end of this year, whether owner or tenant, will be subject to a land values tax, whereas smallholders in this country wish to enjoy that immunity from land values taxation which has been enjoyed by their superiors in the past.
Let us come to the Minister. I know that he is new to a job which involves a great number of complications, and that a new man takes some time to grasp them. The right hon. Gentleman began by telling us to-day why it was necessary to have small owners in this Bill, and he used this argument—that in the past tenants had such an advantage over the small owner that in this Bill the best thing to do was to make more small owners. His argument was that in the past the tenant enjoyed the use of land at an annual rent which bore no relation to the capital value of the land, whereas the tenant who was anxious to become an owner had to advance a large sum of money in the. first instance and had to carry on his hack the cost of repairs, and so on in other words, that the hardships of those who were endeavouring to become small owners were so great and the advantages were so much in favour of tenants, that he thought it better to advance in the Bill a scheme for more small owners. It is a new form of logic.
It is true that as one reads the Bin one finds in it a very careful device. I do not know who has been the architect of the Bill, but he certainly is a most commendable servant to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. They are going to play upon the psychology which, as it were, befogs the mind of the agricultural labourer into the belief that he is becoming something, that he is becoming an owner. They are to play upon that state of mind. They are telling this man, "Support this Bill and the party that has introduced it, and in 60 years you will be the owner of a piece of land in England." They tell him, "You can support the Bill full of optimism." The man is led to believe that he has a great outlook. Yes, he has great hopes that if at the age of 20 he takes advantage of the Bill, when he reaches the age of 80, God willing, he will be the owner of a hit of land in England.

Mr. J. JONES: Yes, 6 feet by 3 feet.

Mr. MacLAREN: He is to be the owner after 60 years.

Brigadier-General WARNER: No; directly he pays the rent.

Mr. MacLAREN: I wish hon. Gentlemen who interrupt would relieve me of their support at the moment. If a man fails to pay a fair interest the local authorities can displace him, so that for the duration of 60 years he is more or less a tenant, subject to the local authority and he does not become the owner until he has finally passed through 60 years' ordeal. During those 60 years the man will be rooted to the soil, still believing that the day will come when he will become an owner free from the exactions of the county councils or the superior landowners, trudging along with hopes for the future, subject to all sorts of adversities, putting all his capital into the undertaking. A ghastly prospect for a labourer with the fine idea of becoming an owner in 60 years! Superimposed upon that the Minister knows perfectly well that Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill are nothing more nor less than long-drawn-out legal clauses, which are essential in a Bill of this kind in which you establish ownership. All these complications and legal enactments to safeguard the local authorities against the recalcitrant small-
owner will, as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said, lead to a great deal of litigation on both sides. All of this money is being spent, not to advance agriculture in this country, not to increase the production of food, but because the Government are persistent in advocating peasant proprietorship against the security of tenure which could be easily established.
I do not think that the Amendment before the House will meet with any success, because the Government from the outset when they gave a hint of their policy—despite the. Minister's statement to-day that it was no part of the Government's policy to support the owner against the tenant or vice versa—have said that they were going to establish peasant proprietors. I say here, as I said in Committee, that the whole scheme is intended first of all to impose on the simple-minded agricultural labourer the idea that he is to get something. He is to be made to believe that finally he will become an owner of land in this country, as peasants are owners of land in France —France, the nursery ground of revolutions, the birthplace of so many advanced movements in the past. When the French in the agricultural areas were converted into smallowners they became naturally the reactionary element upon which the Conservative parties of France could depend. That is the spirit behind this Bill.
Our Amendment will meet with no success in the Division Lobby, but I tell Members opposite that I, for one, will be in many of their constituencies pointing out the facts. It will be our business to point out also that this proposal of the Government is significant of the times in which we are living, because the owners of land. in England know that the day is coming when they will be uprooted and dispossessed of a monopoly which they have held for centuries, and they are hoping to get out of that difficulty by parcelling out great areas of land to the local authorities, if the local authorities are simple enough to entertain the scheme. We will do nothing to help peasant proprietorship, but we will certainly do all that we can to get control of land, to give security of tenure to men who want some alternative to walking the streets and receiving the dofe. This Bill is the
wonderful present which the Conservative party is offering to a destitute agricultural population in the hope that they will still continue to dominate that population as they have done in the past, but we on this side of the House are optimistic enough to believe that even in the brains of the agricultural labourer there is already a flickering of intelligence.

Mr. GRACE: It is very difficult to follow the objections of some hon. Members opposite to peasant ownership. There was the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead). Is he aware that in Russia the whole of the agricultural system is based upon peasant ownership? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is. It is the peasant of Russia who is saving Russia from complete ruin to-day. If Russia ever comes back to a state of sanity and civilisation it will be due to the peasant owners of Russia. The crux of the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was that he objected to peasant ownership because the moment a man owned land you were no longer able to control him and to force him to carry on his farming on certain defined lines. It seems to me grossly unfair that the industry of farming should be subject to any kind of control by State Departments or county councils or any other body.
6.0 P.M.
Other business people have not to submit to control of this kind. Why should farmers be compelled to do so? Under-lying the right hon. Gentleman's remarks there seems to he the idea that the farmers of this country are not able to do their job properly. The Liberal party are always ready to point to the farmers of Denmark or Norway and to say how splendidly those farmers do their work— just as hon. Members of the Labour party like to refer to Russia. They never see the skill and genius of their own people at home. I am one of those who believe that farming in England to-day is carried on in a highly efficient way and it is not right that farming alone should have to submit to this kind of control. If you try to control people by public authorities in this way, you do more harm than good. We had some experience during the War When we had the county agricultural authorities, and we know that, if they were asked to submit.
to that kind of control again, the farmers of this country would one and all object.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the county agricultural authorities should be able to come down upon the farmers if the farmers did not cultivate the land in the way which these particular authorities regarded as the proper way, and that the authorities should have power to turn the farmers out of their farms. Would that be security of tenure? The right hon. Gentleman referred to France. I happen to know something of France, because I lived on a farm in Touraine for some years, and I know that every year France grows more wheat than is grown in Canada. I am not prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to the condition of farming in France where peasant ownership largely prevails. The right hon. Gentleman said that to-day, in England, farming is largely carried on under landlords who let their land to tenants, and who are unable to control the method of farming. He argued that therefore, less food is produced than would be produced if the land were under the control of county councils. The right hon. Gentleman says he has had experience as a country Solicitor. I do not think he can ever have read a farm agreement. Had he done so he would have known that it contains all kinds of restrictions and conditions to enforce good husbandry. I would remind hon. Members opposite that Rome, in the clays of its prosperity, had a great system of peasant ownership and when that system began to fall into decay, so also did Rome. This part of the Bill which makes peasant proprietorship possible is the best and most essential part of the Measure, and I shall therefore support it.

Mr. WESTWOOD: In extending any scheme of small holdings, we ought to take into consideration the type of individual who will make the best smallholder. I submit that the hest type of smallholder is the worker who is already engaged in agriculture. There is a demand for that type of worker in our Colonies, and the only way we can help to retain that type of worker—who is so much required in this country—is to give him the chance of getting a small holding. Under the scheme before us, the very type of individual who would make best use of the small holding will be excluded from getting it, because he is
among the poorest of those on the land at the present time. He is to be asked to buy his small holding, and he will be in perpetual servitude to the moneylenders if this scheme goes through.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: He can rent it if ho likes.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Yes, but there is to be included in the cost of rental, what would actually be the charges made by the moneylender.

Sir H. CAUTLEY indicated dissent.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am prepared to admit as an individual that I have not yet learned everything in connection with small holdings. I have not yet learned everything in connection with agriculture, despite the fact that for several years I have been convener of an agricultural committee in a county which is one of the finest agricultural areas in Great. Britain. I am sure that the Minister, like every agriculturist, has been interested in this discussion, and more than interested in the statements made by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Sir R. Lynn). I am prepared to admit that what I have learned in connection with this subject has been learned since I left School, but we have the claim made by the hon. Member for West Belfast that he had learned everything about agriculture before he left School. That is what his statement amounts to, unless Dod's Parliamentary Companion is incorrect; because I find from that work that the hon. Member started journalism when he was 17 years of age, and has been editor of a newspaper since 1903. Yet we have the claim that he knows everything about agriculture seriously made here by this Member of the Tory party, the very party that did its utmost to keep back peasant proprietorship in Ireland and to maintain those millionaires to whom the hon. Member made such nice references.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the hon. Member recollect that the scheme for land purchase was carried through by George -Wyndham, and was initiated under Conservative auspices?

Mr. J. JONES: And your party turned Wyndham down, and killed the man.

Mr. WESTWOOD: It is equally true that every one of the big landowners who
had to be fought in Ireland belonged to the Conservative party and those who still remain are staunch supporters of the Conservative party. However, I hope the Minister of Agriculture will take into consideration the statement of the hon. Member for West Belfast. Agriculture in this country is in a bad way. We want to give the best of education to all connected with agriculture, whether farmers or smallholders, and now we know that we have in our midst a man who knows everything about agriculture—one who has nothing to learn on the subject. I feel sure we have the wrong person as Minister of Agriculture. The present Minister would be the last individual in the House to claim that he knows everything about the subject. Even the experts in his Department would admit that it is a case of "the more they know the less they know" in connection with agriculture. Now that we have this claim by the hon. Member for West Belfast, I sincerely trust that the Amendment will be carried, and, that, even should it be lost, the Minister will have the hon. Member for West Belfast as one of his colleagues in the near future—the man who knows all about agriculture.

Mr. D. REID: I do not wish to intervene in the Debate for any length of time, and I would rot have risen at all had not the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), in the course of his speech, drawn certain inferences from the state of land owning in Ireland. There seems to be a gap in the hon. Member's information on this subject. It is quite true that there was a time in Ireland when farming suffers owning to the fact that rents could be raised arbitrarily. But the hon. Member proceeded to draw a certain inference front that fact in which I submit he was wrong. He must remember that in 1881, what was known as the Irish land Art was passed. That gave security of tenure gave the tenant certain rights and fixed the rent which was to be imposed upon the tenant. Yet that Measure did not bring satisfaction to anybody and, after 20 years of that system, it was necessary for George Wyndham to eVolve a scheme of land purchase. The system which the hon. Member advocates has been tried and has failed. The root fallacy is that the valuation is precise. It is not. Once you have people going into the Courts
to have their rents fixed, you have different valuers taking up different views, and you have the good farmer treated on a different footing from the bad farmer. You have different Courts having different ideas as to the proper methods of valuation.
What the farmer wants is something to fix the matter definitely. When he is the owner he knows where he is and that if he puts work into the land the advantage comes to himself. If he even had a rent charge fixed on the land which would not vary, his position would be better than if he had a rent liable to change. I think that consideration should be brought to the notice of the hon. Member opposite who must see that the deductions which he drew by no means follow from the state of affairs which formerly prevailed in Ireland. I do not wish to go into the controversial position taken up by the last speaker, I only point to the facts of land tenure in Ireland and the results of experience there, and ask the hon, Member if he draws again upon Irish experience to use the whole of the material and not only a part of it.

Mr. MacLAREN: Will the hon. Member allow me to point out that when referring to Ireland I was referring to the time when there was no restriction on the action of the superior landlord in regard to increasing rents. I used the argument that the precarious condition of the tenants in those circumstances, made many of them look to peasant proprietorship as a means of escape.

Mr. J. JONES: I think it is time that those of us who represent industrial constituencies should have some say on matters affecting the land. I happen to be an Irishman by birth and I spent a considerable portion of my early days in Ireland. I know something about landlordism in its various phases—some of them I would like to forget and a good deal of them I hope to remember. But I rise now to ask where do we come in— those who represent the industrial worker? In these discussions upon land we are always left out; we are nobody's children. These discussions always centre round the farmer, the labourer, and the landowner. The only time we are called upon is when "your King and country need you." Our rights in the soil and our claim to the land in which we were
born sink into insignificance beside the vested interests which various people hold in the land of Great Britain. I live in a borough which, 40 years ago, was practically a village. It has grown to be one of the largest towns in Great Britain. We are paying in ground rents every year £2,000,000 to absentee landlords for the right to live in our own borough which has been built up by the industry of our people. The River Thames happens to flow past us and great clocks and factories have been put up along the riverside. When we come to this House we are told about security of tenure and good husbandry. What about the good husbandry of the people in the factories and workshops who are producing wealth? After all, the agriculturist lives upon the town worker and the town worker lives upon the agriculturist. One is essential to the other. Why this differentiation? The soil of England belongs to the people of England and not to a section of them.
Any advantage that can be gained from the soil should be the common property of all the people of Great Britain. We are told my Lord Tom Noddy and my Lord Somebody McGregor must have all the rights, and the Government say: "In order to maintain our position, in order that we may be able to keep the present opportunity, we are going to give a little bit of sugar to the bird." The bird is the agricultural labourer, and he always sings the song von want him to:
God bless the squire and his rotations,
And keep us in our proper stations.
So you say you will give him a hit of land for himself, and the end of it all will be that, when he has reached a certain period of his life, he will have six feet by three of land. That will be his share of the soil. France has been referred to, but 60 per cent. of the soil of France belongs to the bankers now, 20 per cent. belongs to big proprietors, and there are only 20 per cent. of the peasant proprietors of France who can claim their souls as their own. That has been proved by official figures demonstrated before the Chamber of Deputies, and yet we are asked to walk into this parlour. The policy of the Conservative party is, of course: "We have to hang on a little bit longer, and if we do not hang on now, we shall hang later on," and we are hanging them, at Hull and other places. Ire-
land has been referred to, but I do not want to talk about Ireland, because I would like to forget the times I spent in it as a boy, in the workhouse.
I would like to remind some of our hon. Friends opposite that, as far as land is concerned, what they want to do with the labourers is to put them in pawn. That is the proposal in this Bill. The man who wants a bit of land is to be the owner. I have been an owner, not of land, but of something else, and I wish to Heaven I could get rid of the ownership. Ownership is not everything. You can be an owner and be in debt. We want ownership with security, but there is only one kind of ownership with security, and that is communal ownership—the people owning their own country in the interests of all the people. That is the only kind of ownership that matters. The only thing we own now, of course, is the National Debt, and we can all hang on to that. The only people who want us not to get rid of it are the bankers and the financiers. The National Debt is ours all the time. They never object to that being made common property, but when we ask for the common ownership of the soil, they say: "It cannot be done! Private ownership is the thing, and you have to encourage a man to put his best into the soil," but

what does the owner put into the soil? What do the present owners put into the soil? They put the worker into it, and that is where they want to keep him, down with his nose to the ground all the time, and when he has done 60 years of it:
Rattle his bones over the stones!
He's only a pauper whom nobody owns!

That is the position the worker is going to be in. So far as some of us are concerned, all that we say is that the only solution of this problem is public ownership of the soil, the nation to be the owner of the soil and those who work for the nation to get their proper return from the soil. That can only be done when we have the land made what it ought to be, not a land to fight for when you make wars, but a land to work for when we have peace. That will be the time when we shall have a real nation, but now you are only playing about with it and trying to obscure the issue, one party proposing one thing and another party proposing another. There is only one real solution of all these problems, and that is that the land shall belong to the people, and the people shall belong to the land.

Question put, "That the words buy or 'stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 119.

Division No. 511.]
AYES
[6.20 p.m.


Acland.Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Edmondson. Major A. J.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James I.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Elliot, Major Waiter E.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ellis, R. G.


Albery, Irving James
Caine, Gordon Hall
Elvedon, Viscount


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s,.M.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Astbury, Lieut., Commander F. W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fermoy, Lord


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Christie, J. A.
Fielden, E. B.


Balniel, Lord
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Finburgh. S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Clarry, Reginald George
Forestier Walker, Sir L.


Barnett, Major sir Richard
Clayton, G. C.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foxcroft Captain C. T.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bennett, A. J.
Cockerill, Brig. -General Sir G. K.
Fremantle, Lieut. -Colonel Francis E.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Ganzoni, Sir John


Betterton, Henry B.
Cope. Major William
Gates, Percy


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Blundell, F. N.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Grace, John


Boothby, R. J. G.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Graham. Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Grattan-Doyle, Sir K.


Braithwaite, A. N.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Brass, Captain W.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd. Hemel Hempst'd)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dawson, sir Philip
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Drewe, C.
Hanbury, C.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Haslam, Henry C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Hawke, John Anthony
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Headlam, Lieut. -Colonel C. M.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Welden)
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Mansell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stuart, Hon, J. (Moray and Nairn)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hills, Major John Walter
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Murchison, C. K.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Holt. Capt. H. P.
Neville, R. J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hopkinson, A, (Lancaster, Mossley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Waddington, R.


Hume, Sir G. H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Huntingfield, Lord
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hurd, Percy A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hurst Gerald B.
Perring, Sir William George
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hutchison. G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wells, S. R.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Preston, William
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Raine, W.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Ramsden, E.
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lord, Walter Greaves
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lougher, L.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Withers, John James


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rice, Sir Frederick
Womersley, W. J.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


MacIntyre, Ian
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


McLean, Major A.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Savery, S. S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Macquisten, F. A.
Shepperson, E. W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Slaney, Major p. Kenyon



Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smithers, Waldron
Major Hennessy and Captain


Malone, Major P. B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Margesson.


NOES


Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.


Attlee. Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Baker. J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R,. Elland)


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr. J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda. West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Briant, Frank
Johnston. Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden. Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Ponty pridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Kennedy. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E. V


Clynes, Rt. Hon John R.
Lansbury. George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lee. F.
Townend, A. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Livingstone, A. M.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dunnico, H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wostwood, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J


Fenby, T. D.
MacNeill-Weir, L,
Whiteley, W


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Wiggins, William Martin


Georne, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Maxton, James
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gosling, Harry
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Palsley)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)


Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Nayler, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall. F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

CLAUSE 3.—(Power to sell to co-operative societies, etc.)

Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, after the word "council," to insert the words:
persons willing to work on a cooperative system shall have power to appeal within one month to the Minister against the refusal of the county council to approve their system.
I should like to commend this Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), to the Minister, because we feel that if these small holdings are to be successful, they must be allied with the marketing system, and it is impossible for the small grower or cultivator by himself to market his produce effectively. Even the large grower has difficulty in that direction, and wherever small holdings have been developed success fully, it has been on a co-operative basis. Therefore, we feel that if the Minister intends to develop small holdings effectively side by side, he should endeavour to develop the co-operative system. Not only that, but, as a matter of fact, the Minister knows we have a consumers' co-operative movement in this country which could be very well linked up so as to take the produce from co-operative small holdings. If the hon. Member for Burslem had moved this Amendment, provided the Minister could have seen his way to accept it, I should have liked later on to have moved a further Amendment, and perhaps I may take this opportunity of indicating the line of the further Amendment.
In the first place, this Amendment draws attention to the necessity of sympathetic consideration for the development of co-operation in agriculture, but I desire to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that when we have developed a co-operative system of farming, we do not appear to obtain very favourable treatment from county councils. The further Amendment is intended to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, while we are passing legislation of this sort, co-operative farming and co-operative organisation may be seriously injured if the county council is not sympathetic. In the Wholesale Co-operative Society we have had experience of what one might term biased county council authorities against the co-operation system. I think
the Minister and hon. Members opposite will realise that in the development of agriculture in this country there are two opposing views. Already, on a previous Amendment, opinion has been voiced on this side to the effect that we feel that ownership of land primarily belongs to the community, and any system of cultivation should be on the basis of tenancy rather than on the basis of ownership. The reason we wish to further the development of co-operative farming is that we believe it is a step in the direction of co-operative ownership of the land, either on the part of the State, the county council, the local authority or co-operative organisations as such. It embodies, of course, the collectivist principle of farming and the cultivation of land, and, in view of the Volume of opinion which has developed in this country, which we on this side of the House represent in principle, I think it is a desirable thing that this should be eneouraged in every direction.
I do not think, as a matter of fact, that agricultural interests in this country will lose by working-class organisations gaining experience in the cultivation of land. It brings co-operative organisations, who speak for what we might describe as industrial opinion, to represent the views and interests of the consumers in our large industrial towns, which react considerably on the development of agriculture in this country. I think it is a practical gain to agriculture that bodies representing that point of view should gain first-hand experience of the farming and agricultural conditions of this country. Let roe draw the attention of the Minister to one or two experiences which, in our view, show that a good deal of bias inn prejudice can be levelled against the development of co-operation, and this Bill and this particular Clause at present do not meet this difficulty. I think the Minister is aware of some of the facts which I am going to mention. The Co-operative Wholesale Society has an estate at Coldham, in Cambridgeshire, of 3,000 acres. It is very well cultivated; it is intensively cultivated. It has been used for fruit and vegetable produce, and it was the intention of that organisation eventually to establish jam works right in the heart of the country in order to deal with the produce from the estate in its most fresh condition for the purpose of producing
jam, and I submit that the linking-up of rural industries of manufacture in the centre of our agricultural communities represents a distinct advantage.
What has been our experience? We find that the county council is strongly prejudiced against the system of co-operative marketing. A question was put to the Minister some time ago, and from the information given to the House it was apparent that this particular county council had not obtained land from any other owner or occupier within its area. The only estate which was encroached upon was a co-operative estate, and all our experience goes to prove that was directed by prejudice. As a matter of fact, one of the county councillors, who had a good deal to do with the influence used on that occasion, actually made a public statement that he did not approve of the Co-operative Wholesale Society owning land at Cold-ham. While individuals are entitled to their views in matters of this sort, I think in matters of public policy, at least, we want some safeguard in legislation of this description, that if we cannot get local equity, the Minister of Agriculture should hold the scales fairly evenly balanced, to see that prejudice does not work Acts of Parliament.
In view of the fact that during 1923 and 1924, 260,000 acres of land in this country, previously arable, were put back to grass, 200,000 acres to ordinary pasture, and 60,000 acres to rough grazing, we feel that the policy of the Minister of Agriculture should be directed to seeing that land of that description is utilised for the purpose, provided, of course, it is suitable land. I would be the last person to advocate that the smallholder should be put on a type of land which prevents his success at the very commencement. But the land to which I am referring—at least a good portion of it— had been used for arable cultivation previously, and it was considered of fair standard. Those on this side who desire to see a greater number of people in this country really engaged in land cultivation, brought into open spaces, away from the crowded areas of our industrial system, at the same time desire to see that this new development should take Place in harmony with the genera] interests of the consumers, because, rightly or wrongly, we claim that if the
interests of the countryside become antagonistic to the general interests of the country, the weight of the industrial interests of Great Britain is bound in the long run to be asserted to the detriment of agriculture.
That is why we are urging this Amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept it. He should make it clear that part of the policy of this Bill is not only to establish small holdings, but to encourage smallholders immediately to start on a firm foundation of co-operative organisation, so that their purchase requirements of seeds and instruments, and the use of machinery, can be obtained on the most economic footing, and that in marketing their produce, they will not be at the mercy of the middleman, the speculator and the market proprietor, but will be linked up with the consumers' co-operative movement, and thereby get full value for their produce. This Amendment, as I have said, does not go as far as I would like it to go, and if the Minister be willing to accept it, I should like to move later on that, after the word "system," to insert the words
or against any action of a county council tending to injure the development of cooperative farming.
This additional Amendment is submitted to give co-operative undertakings in farming some guarantee that they will not beat the mercy of prejudiced and biased county councils.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before calling on the Seconder, I must point out that the Mover covered a larger field than this Amendment really justifies. This Amendment proposes an appeal to the Minister against the refusal of the county council to approve their system. The hon. Member must keep to that point.

Mr. MacLAREN: I beg to second the Amendment.
As has been pointed out by the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment in my name, this is to safeguard any co-operative endeavour against any prejudicial judgment on the part of a county council. I do not think this is at all contentious, and I think the Minister might concede the point that it is possible in some parts of the country—in fact, I am sorry to say, it is true—that some county councils do not care about having co-operative movements in their
areas at all. I think the Minister, if I may take his statements in Committee, would be the last person to stop any genuine co-operative effort in small holdings. This is merely to give such a movement the right of appeal against a biased judgment on the part of a county council. As the Bill stands, a county councils have the last word as to whether there should be co-operative allotments in their area. This is purely a safeguarding Amendment, and I do not think there is anything to be said against it, and I ask that it may be added to the Bill.

Mr. GUINNESS: Quite different points affecting the co-operative movement have been raised in connection with this Amendment. The Amendment itself deals with the power of local authorities to provide small holdings for co-operative societies, and asks that in the case of unreasonable refusal there should be an appeal to the Minister. The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) raised a further point, which it would not be in order for me to go into now.

Mr. BARNES: I was not expecting to have to move the Amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member mentioned a further and quite separate Amendment providing that land farmed by co-operative societies—great organisations like the Co-operative Wholesale Society, whose ease he mentioned—should be exempt from compulsory purchase in cases where the Minister thinks it unreasonable. I am afraid we could not put these big co-operative associations in a privileged position. In all cases of compulsory purchase we have to consider the merits of the case. The Ministry decides whether compulsory purchase is to take place, before the compensation is assessed, but we cannot give exemption to one class of freeholders as against another class.

Mr. BARNES: We do not want that, but we do not want victimisation.

Mr. GUINNESS: Many other people would allege victimisation. Many people are afraid of what will happen under the compulsory powers of this Bill. We believe the existing machinery works justly and enables the Ministry to say whether a
compulsory order should be made, and, where an order is made, it ensures that adequate compensation is given; and we believe that the Co-operative Wholesale Society is just as certain of receiving fair treatment under that method as any other owners of land. But the Amendment deals with quite a different point. It asks that where local authorities have been asked to sell or lease land to smallholders who are on a co-operative basis, and they refuse, there shall be an appeal to the Ministry. We are quite in agreement with the mover of the Amendment as to the necessity of giving adequate facilities to smallholders to acquire land for cooperative cultivation, but we believe the provisions of the Small Holdings Act, 1908, are satisfactory in this respect, and we are therefore re-enacting Section 9, Sub-section (2) of that Act.
As far as can be traced in the Ministry, there has never been any case under that Act in which unreasonable treatment of co-operative, or intending co-operative, smallholders by a local authority has been alleged, and, in the absence of a very strong case, it really would not be wise for the House of Commons to interfere with the free choice of tenants by the county councils. After all, the local authority are responsible for the whole loss over and above 75 per cent. of the loss, the approved estimate which they put forward to the Ministry before embarking on the scheme. Not all tenants, not even all co-operative tenants, are necessarily successful, and the Ministry and the Exchequer would be in an impossible position if, after having limited their contribution to a scheme, they then forced upon the local authority tenants against the will of that body. It is not from any lack of sympathy with the co-operative movement as applied to smallholders that I feel bound to resist the Amendment, but because I believe it trenches on an invariable principle of our administration in this matter, that local authorities must be free to choose their own tenants.

Mr. BUXTON: The Minister has used arguments against granting immunity to any particular class of holders, but surely that is irrelevant to this particular Amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS: I think the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for East Ham South
(Mr. Barnes), which introduced quite a different point, and I have been answering that.

Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps he was irrelevant too: but the Amendment deals solely with the proposal for an appeal, and when the Minister realises that that is all that is contained in it, can he not look favourably on this proposal, which may he very valuable, and is not at all offensive to a county council I know the Minister has no general objection to

appeals, because I have found fault with him on other Bills for an excessive devotion to appeals. I am thinking at the moment of the Drainage Bill. Can he not took on this as a very innocent proposal which might very well be granted?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 210.

Division No. 512.]
AYES
[6.54 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Briant, Frank
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton. J. E.


Clowes, S.
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities
Livingstone, A. M.
Townend, A. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fenby, T. D.
March, S.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon J.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Whiteley, W


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Wiggins, William Martin


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenall, T.
Murnin, H.
Williams, David (Swansea. E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.


Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Betterton, Henry B.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Caine, Gordon Hall


Albery, Irving James
Blundell, F. N.
Cassels, J. D.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)


Astbury, Lieut.Commander F. W.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Braithwaite, A. N.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brass, Captain W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Balniel, Lord
Briscoe, Richard George
Christie, J. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarry, Reginald George


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Clayton, G. C.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Bennett, A. J.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cockerill, Brig. General Sir G. K.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cope, Major William
Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Preston, William


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hills, Major John Waller
Price, Major c. W. M.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Raine, W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rentoul, G. S.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Cb'ts'y)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Huntingfield, Lord
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Drewe, C.
Hurd, Percy A.
Savery, S. S.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Hurst, Gerald B.
Shepperson, E. W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sianey, Major P. Kenyon


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smithers, Waldron


Ellis, R. G.
Knox, sir Alfred
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Elveden, Viscount
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


England, Colonel A.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley. Lord (Fylde)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Woston-s, M.)
Lougher, L.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Everard, W, Lindsay
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Storry-Deans, R.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Fansnawe, Commander G. D.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Fermoy, Lord
MacIntyre, Ian
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Fielden, E. B.
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Finburgh, S.
Macnag Men, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Thom. Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Forrest, W.
Macquisten, F. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Waddington, R.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Malone, Major P. B.
Warner. BriGadier-General W. W.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Manningham-Buller. Sir Mervyn
Warrender, Sir Victor


Ganzoni, Sir John.
Margesson, Capt. D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gates, Percy
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams. Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)


Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Grace, John
Moore, Lieut. -Colonel T. c. H. (Ayr)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Grant, Sir J. A.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Murchison, C. K.
Withers. John James


Grotrian, H. Brent
Neville, R. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Guinness, Rt. Hon, Walter E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hanbury, C.
Ormsby-Core, Hon. William
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Young. Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Haslam, Henry C.
Perring, Sir William George



Hawke, John Anthony
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C.




Thomson

CLAUSE 4.—(Power to acquire land for small holdings.)

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, at the end, to insert the words
but so that in such purchase or lease the basis of compensation shall be the net annual value of the land.
This Amendment was moved in Committee, and the main theme of the Minister s reply was that, while it might be that certain alterations are desired, at least by members of my party, this is not the moment when by piecemeal methods we should be altering the normal methods of purchasing land. I submit that is no reply whatever. Here we are engaged providing land for public and social purposes; purposes which the Com-
mittee and, perhaps, a large proportion of the people beyond these walls are agreed is of first importance from the national point of view. That being the case, it seems to me that the basis of compensation ought to be as suggested in this Amendment, the net annual value of the land. In the past, one has found that wherever the Government in any of their schemes have entered a market, the price of land has quickly begun to increase. Between 1908 and 1919 the price paid for land for the settlement of people on small holdings averaged £32 per acre. When we were showing our patriotism and were settling ex-service men, following 1919, then the Government or the county councils had to pay an average price of £42 per acre, or an increase of 25 per
cent., to ex-service men who were going to be settled, as some small remuneration for the services they rendered the State.
In this financial Memorandum some reference is made to the possibilities of the price of land interest, land charges, and so forth. I do not know whether it is a question of coming events casting their shadows before or not. "If a council buys land at £50 an acre," and so forth. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that figure was used merely as a means of illustrating a point, or whether it is going to act in the country, particularly where arbitrators are called in, as a guiding influence. Land is to be purchased for small holdings under this scheme. No social or amenity value or any other value than the value at present obtained from the land should be paid to any landlord who is going to be compensated because of his land being taken over for general public purposes and the establishment of small holdings. The hon. Member for Maldon (Major RugglesBrise), replying to the Mover of this Amendment in Committee, said:
The whole purpose of this Bill is that the State should assist in order to get the right class of men settled on the land.
The State is assisting financially to the extent of 75 per cent. of the loans. He proceeded:
This is adequately provided for in the terms of the Bill, and there is no need, in addition to that State assistance, also to give further assistance by robbing a man of his possessions, as would be the case if this Amendment were accepted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 16th November, 1926; col. 34.]
If there has been any robbery in the past certainly the landowners have not been robbed. On every occasion when the nation, through its officials, has entered into the market, there has been an increase of price. It is the nation that has been robbed from time to time. I hope that if the promoter of this Bill desires to obtain the maximum value out of it he is going to limit to the least possible price the land on which small holdings are going to he settled. I think that the net annual value of the land is a fair and reasonable price. That should be an instruction to the county councils and arbitrators where they are called in. Then we may reach that stage when the price of land will no longer be a, barrier,
and we will be able to settle a larger number of people on the land than hitherto.

Mr. MacLAREN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend. The moment the Government appears on the scene as a land purchaser prices are inflated at once. When we were discussing the Agricultural Credits Bill it was openly admitted from the Government Front Bench that the land became higher in price the moment the Government appeared on the sence as a purchaser. It was true, and it will be true again. I cannot help recording what Lord Bledisloe said in another place in dealing with this question:
The great difficulty which arises in the case of allotment gardens outside a great urban area is that of acquiring land at any= thing like an economic value, bearing in mind that the rents charged to the allotment-holders are bound to be based upon the price paid on the acquisition of the land.
That is a point which the Minister should keep in mind in discussing this Amendment. Lord Bledisloe proceeds:
When there comes an urgent demand for allotments, the land has suddenly to be acquired. Land of high capital value, based upon its value for industrial purposes, has to be let or sub-let to the allotment-holders at rates which they find difficult to pay.
He goes on to give illustrations. In Committee we pointed out, and I think it is worth while pointing out again, that land which is to be any use for small holdings must be contiguous to towns or markets or some centre of activity and that is bound to he reflected in the enhanced site value. Therefore, if this Bill is going to be carried out and create smallowners and proprietors, surely the first precaution the Government should take is against any attempt on the part of the landowners to take advantage of site values in handing the land over, and thereby create an enormous demand, increase prices, and hinder development. If it were left to me, I would have another device for dealing with that Seeing we are trying to inject Amendments into a very reactionary form of legislation, on the face of it this seems to be the only step if the Government are going to carry this through. Inflation is bound to take
place where the Government or local authorities are likely to appear as buyers, and this will tend to hinder that desire which every man in this House has, to open up natural opportunities for men who are unemployed. It is to facilitate that that we hope the Government will clip the wings of the speculators, and give opportunities for land to be obtained at lower prices.

Mr. GUINNESS: The Amendment raises issues which go far beyond the scope of this Bill. The conditions under which land is compulsorily acquired for public purposes are laid down in the Acquisition of Land Act of 1919, which, as the House will remember, was carefully considered, and endorsed prices less favourable to the landlord than those which had previously been in force. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has told us that whenever the Government appears in any land transaction up goes the price. That is not applicable to transactions under this Bill where the price is fixed by arbitration. He quoted, as an example of the high price of land obtained for small holdings, not land obtained in agricultural districts for allotments, but, as I understood him, the case of allotments on the outskirts of the towns where there was a substantial building value. Naturally, the price of such land is necessarily higher than we expect local authorities to have to find under this Bill. Under the provisions of the Act of 1919 as applied to the purchase of small holdings by the Land Settlement Act of the same year, the average number of years' purchase of the net rent, not the gross rent, was about half what the hon. Member said. It was 22½ years' purchase of the net rental value.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman might inform the House what he means by net rent. For instance, does he deduct the cost of management and repairs?

Mr. GUINNESS: Anyhow, I do not mean gross rent, which the right hon. Gentleman Stated was the practice. Any valuer would arrive at his figure on the sum which the landlord would expect to receive, net, into his pocket. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is here, because he made the same statement on the earlier occasion when we discussed this Bill, and he could not have been in the
House when I gave the facts. These facts have been looked into, and it is no answer to me to say that I do not know the elements of the case. I have been given these facts by the Department who have the figures, and, if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept my word for it, I shall be delighted, if he challenges it, to submit, the facts to the President of the Surveyors' Institution for him to certify that the land bought under the 1919 Land Settlement Act was bought at an annual value not exceeding 22 years' purchase of the net rent. This is a little aside from the point, but I could not resist replying to the argument.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it is very much to the point.

Mr. GUINNESS: The Amendment raises only one of the points relating to the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, which applies to an owner expropriated against his will from his land who is really not concerned as to the purpose to which his land is going to be put. It is no comfort to the owner to be told that his land, being wanted for small holdings, is to be bought at a lower price than he would have received for some other public purpose, such as municipal waterworks. I do not think those who propose the amendment of the present law which governs the compulsory acquisition of land can argue in favour of applying a new alternative system to one type of transaction in land, and to exact much more severe treatment when the land is required for some other public purpose. Even if hon. Members were of the opinion that this was a just principle to apply in a just way all round it would be limited by this Bill to one type of transaction. I do not argue that it would be just, but even if it were, it would be most unjust to apply it in a piecemeal fashion, which is the only possible way under this Bill. For these reasons I am bound to resist this Amendment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Minister of Agriculture has made a very important statement. If what he says is correct, I cannot see why he should resist this Amendment, which simply pins him to the declaration he has made, and which he says he is willing to submit to the Surveyors' Institute. I would like to know has he submitted that proposal to the House of Commons?

Mr. GUINNESS: have submitted it to the House of Commons, and the right hon. Gentleman repeated what I said.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman misses my point. May I suggest that before he interrupts me he should first understand the argument which he is interrupting. The argument I am putting is this: The Minister of Agriculture says that the purchase at the present time by county authorities for allotments or small holdings is on the basis of the net, and he says that he is prepared to submit that point to the Surveyors' Institute. If that is the case, why does he not accept this Amendment, which simply says that the practice which he says obtains shall have statutory recognition? The Amendment says:
but so that in such purchase or lease the basis of compensation shall be the net annual value of the land.
If the right hon. Gentleman says that that is the practice at the present moment, why does he not show his faith in the Surveyors' Institution by accepting the Amendment? The advisers of the right hon. Gentleman know perfectly well that is not the case, and I accept his challenge. "Net value" means what remains to the landlord, that is, what he puts into his pocket after he has paid for management, tithe, repairs and there may be other things, but in the main those are the chief items of deduction. The net is what he pockets and can use for his own domestic purposes. If the Minister of Agriculture says that that is the basis of compensation at the present moment why on earth does he not accept this Amendment. In order to make an argument for rejecting this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman proves that the Amendment is right. Does he mean to say that no change of the law is required and that this is the law at the present time?

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentelman has put a question to me which cannot be answered "Yes," or "No," but I shall be quite willing to give him a complete answer.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope it will be more intelligible than the last. I accept the challenge, and I say that at the present moment when you have arrived at the number of years purchase for county councils, you do not make these deductions, and if you do there is no
reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. This Amendment says that what the Minister of Agriculture has stated is the practice at the present moment should be recognised as the law of the land, and the only objection which he seems to put forward is that that is the practice now. Does the right hon. Gentleman object to making it perfectly clear in an Act of Parliament? There are county councils who are under quite a different impression and are paying on what is, in substance, the gross rent before you deduct the cost of repairs, and therefore it should be made clear to the county councils. As a matter of fact, this is vital to the whole settlement of the agricultural question in this country, whether you have a peasant proprietary or county council ownership, and you will never be able to settle the land question satisfactorily until the land is purchased upon the basis of the net rent. That is the amount which the landlord gets at the present moment and the money that comes into his pocket. When I made the proposal that the net rent should be the basis of compensation, my proposal was met with the criticism that it was confiscation. And now the Minister of Agriculture vindicates me, and says not only was that right, but the Surveyors' Institution says it is right. What better defence could you have than that for the proposition which I have made? I shall gladly accept the challenge which the right hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. GUINNESS: I can only reply to the right hon. Gentleman by the consent of the House. Let me first say that if he will consult the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that I did not say what was the present basis upon which allotments, etc., were bought but that land bought under the 1919 Land Settlement (Facilities) Act would work out at not more than 22½ years' purchase on the average of the net rental value of the land. Now the right hon. Gentleman argues from that that I should accept this Amendment, and he apparently thinks that rental is the same as net annual value. Surely net annual value is a very well established principle, and an easily defined basis of valuation in our rating lists. That, however, is not the net annual value mentioned in this Amendment, and it is quite different to the rental which the right hon. Gentleman is taking here. My issue with the right hon. Gentleman is that it
has nothing to do with the annual value in the rating lists and it is not the fact that in the last seven or eight years in these land transactions 40 or 50 times the net annual value has been paid but something under 22½ times.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did not say that.

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman did say that, and if he looks in Column 806 of the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that he said:
When you talk about 25 years' purchase it is really 40 or 50 years' purchase upon the net rent."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 16th July, 1926; col. 802, Vol. 198.]

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said 25 years meant that, but that does not mean that 22 years' purchase means that.

Mr. GUINNESS: These public transactions he says took place at 40 to 50 years' purchase upon the net rent. The facts and figures we will put before the President of the Surveyors' Institution, and then I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that for the Land and Nation League, and tell them it is not 40 or 50 years' purchase but 22½ years as the maximum.

Mr. BUXTON: I should like to advance a point of view which in the interesting discussion we have just heard has not been touched upon, and that is justice to the community. Whenever you undertake to establish a smallholder you pass on to the taxpayer the market value so far as it includes luxury value, monopoly value, and excessive sporting values, where sport has been carried on to the detriment of the party. It seems to me to amount to a kind of immorality to saddle your own scheme with a burden of that magnitude. No doubt there would he difficulties in the differentiation which would arise. It is the business of the Government to deal with anomalies, but it is the business of those who support the principle to press it when the occasion arises. The Government could, a course, adopt such a proposal in regard to net annual value, if it is desirable to do so.
You happen to have a valuation—the Income Tax valuation, or, if you like, the rating valuation—which does arrive at the net annual value by subtracting from the gross value the items which
have been mentioned. I think one was forgotten, namely, renewals, which are also deducted before the official net annual value is put down. The Government recognise that the agricultural industry cannot afford to bear the burden of the full capital value, by their proposal to make a very large contribution. Is it really fair that, if you want to promote small holdings on a large scale, you should begin by saddling the whole scheme with a burden of great magnitude? Is it in any case efficient to place on the county councils the part of the burden which they have to bear? If the councils had the opportunity of acquiring land on a basis which, however debateable, is to my mind a perfectly sound and fair basis—the basis of real net value—what else would they have to bear? The whole scheme would become a paying proposition, it would be economical, and, therefore, it would be capable of great extension.
The Minister, by his own calculations, is estimating for a small result from his Bill. Why is that? It is because of this peculiar artificial financial burden which is placed by the conditions of the Bill on the action of the county councils. Why should we be talking about a miserable limit of, I think he said, 2,000 holdings in a year, if the whole affair were placed on a really economic basis? I was brought up at Cambridge on sound economics, and I have been encouraged by hon. Members opposite to stick to sound economics, and to avoid the attractions of the fancy economics which sonic attribute to certain advanced politicians. If you really are proceeding on sound economics, and you assume that nothing but agricultural considerations are brought to bear on this question, the development of small holdings ought not to cost public money at all. To my mind there is no case for small holdings unless they pay better than larger holdings. It is really very interesting that the councils actually found, after the War, that the thing was a paying proposition, and I am Personally dead against the artificial creation of luxury small holdings. I should hope we are all agreed that that is not sound. The country cannot afford to spend money on holstering up small holdings, any more than it can afford to bolster up any other form of trade.
The only reason why money has to be spent is that other values are paid for which are artificial and are not properly claimable when the State sets itself to put the land to its best use. The extra amenity value which a great deal of our land possesses in the ordinary market is not a value which ought to be compensated for when the State is spending the taxpayers' money for the purpose of putting the land to its best use. What actually happens You have county councils naturally limited in the amount they wish to spend—limited in regard to capital, limited in regard to the burden they are prepared to put on the rates, but inclined to prefer buying land to leasing land. The Minister knows what a natural bias there is on the part of

councils concerned with small holdings towards buying land, and also against the use of compulsory powers; and what a bias there also is in favour of equipping their land as a council, and not letting the bare land. This all adds a little to the expense, and limits the total result of the operation. If the Government were willing to apply sound economic principles to this Bill, a vastly different result might be hoped for from it. It is the artificially high price of the land which will produce stagnation and limit the value of the Minister's scheme. I support the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 196.

Division No. 513.]
AYES.
[7.36 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn. Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Slesser, Sir Henry H


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


8romfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford South)
Smith. Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J H. (Huddersfield)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda. West)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buchanan. G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford. T. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgen (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Jones, T. I, Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon, James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Thome. G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Therne. W. (West Ham. Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G,
Lee. F.
Tinker. John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F. W.
Townend, A E.


Daiton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Trovelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank S.


Day. Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Viant. S. P.


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wall head, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen


Dunnico. H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, J. Hush (Accrington)
March, S.
Westwood, J.


England, Colonel A.
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Fenby, T, D.
Mitchell. E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Whiteley, W.


Forrest, W.
Montague, Frederick
Wiggins, William Martin


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham. Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pureed, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York. W. R. Normantan)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson. W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bowater. Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Braithwaite, A. N.


Albery, Irving James
Beckett. Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Brass, Captain W.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bennett, A. J.
Briscoe, Richard George


Astfaury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Brittain, Sir Harry


Atholl, Duchess of
Birchall, Major J. Doorman
Brocklebank, C, E. R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blundell, F. N.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)


Balniel, Lord
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Buckingham, Sir H.


Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hanbury, c
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Haslam, Henry C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hawke, John Anthony
Preston, William


Caine, Gordon Hall
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Casseis, J. D.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley)
Raine, W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V, L. (Bootie)
Rentoul, G. S.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm. W.)
Hills, Major John Waller
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hilton, Cecil
Rye, F. G.


Christie, J. A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Clayton, G. C.
Huntingfield, Lord
Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurd, Percy A.
Savery, S. S.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K,
Hurst, Gerald B.
Shepperson, E. W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hutchison.G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Skelton, A. N.


Craik. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Curzon. Captain Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.X.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smithers, Waldron


Davidson.J. (Hertf'd.Hemel Hempst'd)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lougher, L.
Stanley,Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera
Stanley, Lord (Fytde)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Steel. Major Samuel Strang


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Streatfield. Captain S. R.


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacIntyre, Ian
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.
Thom. Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Ellis, R. G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Elveden, Viscount
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Titchfield Major the Marquess of


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, F. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Waddington, R.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Finburgh, S.
Malone, Major P. B.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Manningham-Buller, Mr Mervyn
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Margesson, Captain L.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Merriman F. B.
Wells, S. R.


Frece. Sir Walter de
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Monself, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. R. C. (Ayr)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Grace, John
Murchison, C. K.
Withers, John James


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Neville, R. J.
Womersley, w. J.


G[...]ant, Sir J. A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood. Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Yerburgh. Major Robert D. T.


Grotrian, H. Brent
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ormsoy-Gore, Hon. William



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perring, Sir William George
Major Hennessy and Major Cope.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

CLAUSE 6.—(Conditions affecting small holdings.)

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, to leave out from the word "be" to the word "and" in line 11.
Clause 6 deals entirely with land that is purchased and has nothing to do with land let on tenancy. The conditions on which the purchaser holds the land after he has agreed to buy are set out. My Amendment is to strike out one of the conditions, that he shall farm it
in accordance with the rules of good husbandry as defined by the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923.
The Bill as origiNally proposed did not include the words I want to leave out. They were accepted by the Minister, with undue haste, on an Amendment proposed
by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley). The grounds on which I am moving to strike out these words are that in my opinion they would reduce purchase to an impossibility and practically make the whole of the Bill useless. The House has already, after a full discussion and by a large majority, approved the prin. ciple of purchase, therefore we stand committed to it that State money is to be used to enable small men to purchase small holdings. I regard that as the real live feature of the Bill. The purchaser who is only going to pay one instalment down, and complete the purchase money by subsequent instalments, naturally must he subject to some condition. I agree with all the other conditions, some eight, which are set out in the Clause.
May I point out what would happen if any of the conditions were broken. Under Clause 7, the County Council is to decide when there has been a breach of the conditions and then they can take possession and the estate revests in it. It is true there is to be a valuation and the purchaser is to be charged with all the costs and expenses. Under Clause 8, if the County Council prefer it, they may proceed by sale of the smallholding. The land is then to be sold and again from the purchase money is to be deducted the value of all the outstanding instalments together with all the costs and expenses of valuation. What in fact happens, apart from the Bill, is that as soon as the land is purchased the purchaser becomes the owner. He may not have the money and he raises a mortgage on it. He very often gets two-thirds or three-fourths of the money lent and he holds it on that condition. No one ever heard of such a condition in a mortgage that the owner is to farm according to the rules of good husbandry. No lawyer would ever advise a man to purchase land under these conditions at all. He would say, "Here is a flaw in the title—one of the worst flaws possible. You are to he held responsible for all the money you have paid, you are to he subject to having your holding investigated by the agricultural committee of the County Council, which may be set in motion by someone who has some personal feeling against you, and they are to come then and decide that there has been a breach of the conditions, and these penalties are to come into operation."
May I read some of these conditions which have to be observed under the rules of good husbandry. They include the maintenance of the land in a clean and in a good state of cultivation and fertility and in good condition, the maintenance and clearing of drains, embankments and ditches, the maintenance and proper repair of fences, stone walls, gates and hedges. I agree with them all where the tenant can rightly be required to farm according to these conditions, because he can then be dispossessed of his holding without cost to himslf, and can take another farm. The only reason they were put into the Agricultural Holdings Act was that the landlord up to that time could make such conditions as he pleased in his lease, and could give his tenants a
year's notice to quit without paying him any compensation. These words were put into the Act so that a landlord could not at his own will give notice without paying a year's rent, provided the tenant was complying with the strict rules of good farming as laid down in this Act, and as it now stands, a landlord cannot get rid of his tenant at a year's notice to quit without paying him a year's rent provided the tenant complies with that. The landlord has to prove that the tenant has not been farming according to the rules of husbandry before he can be turned out without a year's compensation. None of these conditions have ever been applied to an owner, even if he has the whole of the money on mortgage. A good many people borrow money on mortgage but these are not put in as terms and conditions, and I ask the Minister not to insist on putting in this Clause.
I gather from the proposals made both by the Liberal and the Labour parties that an effort is now being made to say that landowners shall own their land subject to farming it under certain conditions. This is an entire new view. The view hitherto always held, rightly in my opinion, is that the owner of land farms it in such way as he thinks best and shall not be subject to having to farm at the direction of any other body, such as the committee of a county council. There will be no answer if either of these two parties comes into office and tries to insist on this condition for all the freehold land in the country. It will be said to anyone who protests, as I am protesting, that "We have insisted on this condition in respect of smallholders. How can you object to it in respect of large farmers and landowners." It is an impossible condition for any man who has any wisdom at all to purchase land under this Bill so long as this is made a condition under which he is to hold it. He is to be subs jest to the decision of a body over which he has no control and is liable to forfeit nearly all the money he has spent, and he would infinitely prefer tenancy. The hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) said, as soon as it was proposed, "This is a case where those who oppose the purchase Clauses in this Bill are coming into their own." He will agree with every word I have said. I beg of the Minister to reconsider his decision.

Mr. GUINNESS: This Amendment would put the Bill back into its original form. It is true I accepted it at the instance of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley). It seemed to me reasonable that, where public money had been provided for the creation of these small holdings, anyhow during the period of the repayment of the loan, ownership should be subject to the same obligations as to good husbandry as tenancy. Tenancy holdings have to be subject to this obligation under the existing Acts, and I do not think the hon. Baronet need really fear that this is the thin end of the wedge of the control of freehold land, seeing that it is not a permanent restriction on the use of the land, and that it is only to apply for the period when really the freehold is not fully vested in the purchaser.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Surely in the case of an agreement under Clause 5 to pay off the whole of the purchase money after a term of years, after he has the property entirely in his own possession and is paying rent to no one, he will still adhere to this restriction.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. GUINNESS: Except in rare cases where the purchasing smallholders are in a position to pay off before 40 years, they would be under several obligations for 40 years, and we feel that that is right, because the smallholders are there by the investment of a large sum of public money, and we feel that it is not unreasonable that in return they should be under the obligation for this period to keep the land in a fit state of cultivation. I think the case which has been raised will not happen very often. The great justification of this change from the Bill as origiNally brought in is that it will enable local authorities to maintain their securities. If they do not get this provision, it may be that sometimes they will be very badly let down. If there is any breach of covenant, and the local authority have to come in and dispose of the land or sell it, a heavy loss may be made by them. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) attaches more importance to this than it really deserves.

Captain WATERHOUSE: In the case of a further amending Bill to the Dairies
Act, it is quite possible that, within the next 40 years, one may have to supply extra cubic feet for every cow. How is the smallholder to face that problem? He has no capital, he is just carrying on, and he finds he has to enlarge his buildings to this extent. If he does not enlarge them, he will find that under the good husbandry clause he will be liable for not keeping his buildings in a state necessary for the proper cultivation of the land. The county council could come in and, notwithstanding the fact that the man had paid everything off, they would take the holding back because he was not complying with these conditions.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I must make a mild protest against the suggestion that the county councils are likely to deal unfairly with the smallholder. The county councils have the welfare of smallholders very much at heart. At the same time, it is only right that the county councils should be secured in regard to the property which public money has acquired. Many of us on this side feel that throughout the length and breadth of the country land should be farmed according to the rules of good husbandry, but, if that is not possible, every acre of the land which has been obtained by public funds must be farmed in accordance with that rule.

Amendment negatived.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move: In page 8, line 12, at the end, to insert the words
the amount of snob deficiency to be settled, in default agreement, by an arbitrator to be appointed under the Agricultural Holdings Act. 1923.
This is an Amendment to clear up what appears to be a slight defect in the Bill. Clause 7 enables county councils to recover possession of and hold a small holding, and this appears to be a very drastic condition, as it involves that any deficiency on the small holding is to be a. debt upon the smallholder to the county council. Clause 8 deals with county councils, without recovering possession, putting small holdings up to auction. It lays down, also, that the deficiency shall be recovered as a civil debt from the late occupier. What it does not do is to deal with the case where the reserve price has got to be ascertained in order to recover the amount that is due to the county council. This
Amendment has been put down to suggest that, where a holding is to be put up for action and is not sold, the same method of ascertaining the value shall be followed as in the case where a county council retains a small holding in their own hands.

Major McLEAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS: My hon. and gallant Friend has raised the point as to what happens in cases where it proves impossible to sell a holding under the powers of Clause 8. It is provided that if the county council are unable to sell the holding, they may take possession of the holding in the manner provided by the last foregoing Section. There will be a simple mathematical problem of what is due to the outgoing smallholder under the provisions of Sub-section (2) (b) of Clause 7. It is laid down quite clearly how the calculations are to be arrived it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 12.—(Provision of cottage holdings.)

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): In regard to the next Amendment, in the names of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), Mr. Speaker has suggested that there might be a general discussion on this Amendment covering the Clause, but without prejudice to any subsequent Division.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, to leave out the word "industry" and to insert instead thereof the word "area."
I move this for the obvious reason that the word "industry" limits the application of this portion of the Bill to persons who happen for the moment to be working in the agricultural industry or in certain certified industries. As the funds will be forthcoming from the Exchequer, and presumably from the rates, it seems to me that if this proposal is a good one for certain sections of the workers, it must he good for any other sections who care to take advantage of the facilities. I know the Minister has stated that this is merely an experimental stage. When the Bill was in Committee, an hon. Member sitting behind the Minister
suggested that to permit a miner to have a house built under the scheme partly at the expense of the ratepayers would relieve the mineowners of a responsibility they ought to accept. Whether that be so or not, it seems to me that people who are not at the moment inside the agricultural industry should be brought in by some means in order that the extension of practical agricultural education may take place. I know the circumstances of the moment are very exceptional but, if the experiment is to be successful from the point of view of the agricultural labourer, at, least in some counties some formidable obstacle will have to be removed from its path. My experience of county councils, particularly where farmers dominate them, leads me to believe that, if a farmer member of a county council whose workers live in his own houses were to see an application from one of his own employés for a house, I cannot conceive him forwarding it. It is very doubtful if the present wages of the agricultural worker and his hopes for the future would encourage him to undertake new houses that could he provided under the terms of this Clause. Therefore, if the Clause is to become operative at all, there must be some extension. We are providing public funds for a special purpose, whether it be experimental or not, and if the belief of the Minister and those who advise him is that this is going to be a success, and is worth risking so much money upon it, then it is worth the risk of trying to experiment upon much a broader scale. For that reason, I think we ought to remove the limitation. I think that a cottage holding ought to be available for any person resident near an agricultural area or within a rural area, should he feel disposed to make application to the county council for one of the holdings.

Mr. TOWNEND: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so, I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the words he used in introducing the Bill, when he said that the Government desired to make the opportunities more widely available. This point was raised in Committee, and the desire was there expressed to extend the somewhat narrow limitations in the direction indicated by the Mover of the Amendment. The answer given by the Minister was two-fold, first, that the
extension desired was to a section of the community who were much better remunerated as compared with the agricultural labourer, and, secondly, that it would render invidious the duty of the county council in its selection amongst the applicants who might take advantage of the Act, if the opportunity of application were extended in the way we desire. I suggest that in regard to one section of the community who live in villages, and who may be living side by side with those for whom the Act does cater, namely, the mining section of the community, there will be very little difference in months to come between the wages they receive, and the wages of the agricultural labourers, bearing in mind all the circumstances surrounding their rates of pay.
Apart from that, I suggest that if the Government have a real desire that these opportunities should be more widely available, bearing in mind that the source of the assistance rendered is derivable from public funds, and that the opportunity should be offered to people such as quarrymen, railwaymen and postmen, I can see a development that will be absolutely illogical when a certain stage is reached, in the event of this 13111 becoming operative. Take the ease of the son of a person who takes advantage of the cottage holding arrangement. An agricultural labourer makes his payments for a certain number of years and then dies, and leaves whatever he is entitled to in the holding to his son, who may be employed on the railway. In these circumstances, the position would not be interfered with. Under the Act the son would continue to take advantage of the facilities laid down in the Act, so that 15 years hence, we may find two railwaymen, one taking advantage of this Act, by virtue of succeeding his father, and the other because he happens to be employed upon the railway, being denied facilities, the motive for which is the provision of wider opportunities for the cultivation of land than are offered under present circumstances. That is an illogical position. I think that both the points submitted by the Minister in Committee have been adequately met. He said that the position would be difficult for the county councils. Surely, if the object for which
the Bill has been drafted is justifiable in the case of an agricultural labourer, and we desire to increase home produce by means of this Act, so that the home consumer can he better provided for in that respect, the scope of the Act should be widened in the way we suggest in the Amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) seems to think that there was something inconsistent in my attitude upstairs, in view of what I said on Second Reading. I said that many men had got an initial start in life by taking advantage of such an opportunity. If he will look at the previous sentence he will see that I was talking of the demand of the agricultural worker. I think hon. Members have forgotten that the object of this Clause is to provide special facilities for agricultural workers and workers in other industries allied thereto. We never set out to provide a new and more generous form of housing subsidy. We cannot entertain the proposal to throw open these new opportunities to anybody in a rural area who has
the intention, knowledge, and capital to cultivate satisfactorily the land forming part of the cottage holding.
It would mean that there would be practically no restriction at all. It would mean that the agricultural worker would find in competition with him people in a much better position to find the capital necessary for the holdings; men who might be tempting as tenants to the local authority from their other occupation in life, perhaps paid much more highly than agricultural occupations, and thereby being in a better position to pay the rent. We do not propose to deal with that type of applicant at all. There are provisions whereby he can get an allotment or a small holding.

Mr. PALING: He does not get many small holdings.

Mr. TOWNEND: And purchase them on these terms?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes. The purchase terms are the same in the Bill. Any applicant can get an allotment, or he can get a, bare small holding of one acre and upwards, or a small holding with house, from three acres. The only type of accommodation from which he is shut
out in this Bill is the new experimental type of cottage holding. We have had many housing Bills in the last few years, and certainly none has ever had such generous or elastic terms as are provided in this Clause. That is, no doubt, why hon. Members opposite are anxious to extend the provisions to cover many other deserving people besides agriculturists. It is impossible for the Government to transform a provision which was intended to help the agricultural worker into a wide measure of general housing, under which the local authority would find 25 per cent. and we should find 75 per cent, of the cost. The probability is that with this new provision in the Bill local authorities would go slow, and it is important that the people who need these cottage holdings most and in whose interest they are being initiated, the people who are engaged in agriculture and industries ancillary thereto, should get them.
The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) told us that local authorities who may be friendly to the labour point of view would be very unwilling to accept agricultural workers as tenants.
Surely that is a tremendous argument against the Amendment. He has suggested that we should open the door to these other dwellers in agricultural areas; none of them would be shut out under this Amendment. The better-paid workers have many opportunities which are outside the reach of the agricultural worker and therefore this Clause must be limited to the class it is is intended to benefit. The hon. Member for Devizes, in Committee, pointed out that the second subsection is perhaps rather ambiguous because it mentions certain, industries which are ancillary to agriculture, and this might be held by inference to exclude others. That is certainly not our intention, and as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, wish to have one general discussion on this Amendment, I might perhaps explain that if the House rejects the Amendment now under consideration I shall move an Amendment in Subsection (2) which will define a rural industry as-
an industry carried on in or adjacent to a village being an industry ancillary to the industry of agriculture or horticulture for the time being approved by the Minister.
On the whole we think it best to leave out the particular trades mentioned in
the Sub-section, and by that means widen and make more elastic the definition so that all those who really depend on an industry ancillary to agriculture shall have an opportunity of getting this new type of accommodation. I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment as it would be quite out of the question to throw open the door to all industries in all rural areas, whether really in the country or more truly as part of a town. I hope the. House will agree to the proposed Amendment to Sub-section (2) when we reach that stage.

Mr. FENBY: To me the mind of the Minister of Agriculture is absolutely beyond understanding. I wish he would remember that he is at the head of an important Department which has to deal with very big problems, problems that in some measure could do something to solve the unemployment and the housing problems. But here we are, a great Department of the State, fiddling about with little niggling things such as we have in regard to these cottage holdings. To-night the Minister says that he cannot open the door and encourage county authorities to build cottage holdings for all kinds of people living in rural areas. That is his attitude to-night. What did he say to the Committee upstairs? On another Amendment dealing with this Clause he put forward another objection. He said:
It is difficult to define the exact application of this proposal without letting in people from the towns.
One has always understood that the task of everyone who knows anything about our rural and city life is how to stern back the tide from the country to the city and how to do something to open a stream which will flow from the city to the countryside. Here we have a Minister with a powerful majority behind, him and the finest opportunity that has come to a Government during the last 10 years to do something substantial in regard to the rural problem. In the matter of cottage holdings he says we cannot make them available for everyone in a rural area. Upstairs he said that we cannot have people coming in from the towns, but if we are going to restrict these cottage holdings to a section of the people who live in a rural area, if they are going to be provided by money loaned from the State, then why should the man in the town, who is not to have an opportunity of having one of these cottage holdings,
be asked to pay towards a privilege which he has no opportunity of enjoying The Minister also seems to boggle at something else; he is hampering the county authority in regard to the people who make application. Surely the great mistake made by Governments during the last 15 years has been this, that the county authority has never been allowed to be the housing authority. We should have had much more progress if the county authority had had an opportunity of being the housing authority, but it was left with the opportunity only of building houses for its own officials, such as School teachers, policemen, its employés, roadmen, and the like, and it was never allowed to enter upon a comprehensive scheme of housing in the rural districts. Here the Minister is putting a further break on county authorities doing something to establish cottage holdings.
The right hon. Gentleman knows what a narrow squeak he had in regard to this Clause in the Committee stage, and how he was only saved by the Chairman of the Committee very generously extending to him the protection of the casting vote. Otherwise this Clause might have gone all together. I hope he will remember that he is at the head of a great Department which has to deal with problems which affect the life of the people both in towns and in the country, and that he has an opportunity of doing something now on a really big scale. I hope he will not neglect the opportunity; that he will not take the narrow view that only a limited number of people are to have an opportunity of enjoying these cottage holdings. Cottage holdings are on the right line, if in the right area and of the right type; and in the areas of Yorkshire he will find any number of people who are ready if the rent is suitable, if the house is suitable and if the land is suitable, to take advantage of any scheme which deals with this problem in a big way and on a generous scale. I hope the Minister will not shelter himself behind little bits of objections here and there, that he will not say, we cannot have the people from the towns coming in. Believe me, that is the very thing which some of us want to encourage—men getting into the country and getting back to nature by cultivating the soil. The hon. and gallant Member for South -Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) pointed
out in Committee that the Minister on the Second reading went near to saying that the cottage holding might be a ladder which would acquaint a man with the rules of good husbandry and lead to something greater. I appeal to the Minister to do something generous now.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I agree in theory with what the last speaker has said. I feel, too, that we do want big proposals. But big proposals cost big money, and in these times of financial stringency I can quite understand the Minister not being able to throw open this Clause so widely as he and many of us would wish if the money were available. I, therefore, with other hon. Members, have put on the Paper an Amendment not as broad m the Amendment which I moved in Committee, and I am hoping that it will commend itself to the favourable notice of the Minister. The Minister said that he had to stand by his original proposal. I wish that he would stand by his original proposal, as stated in the excellent explanatory memorandum on the Bill. That memorandum, on page 3, says:
One other main feature of the Bill must be referred to. It is proposed to make provision for the creation of holdings of a new class, called cottage holdings, intended to he occupied by and sold to farm workers and persons employed in rural industries, for cultivating in their spare time.
How the Minister can say that my innocent Amendment, which lays it down that a rural industry shall mean any industry of a substantially rural character, does not come within that passage from the memorandum, it is rather difficult to see. One cannot fairly limit a rural industry to the agricultural industry. In Derbyshire, Leicestershire and many other counties there are large quarries. Surely quarrying is essentially a rural industry, and surely a quarryman, as a villager in every sense of the word, is the type of man that might legitimately come within the scope of the Bill? I think that a man who makes bricks might also come under it. I am not at all sure that he will not come in. There is the curious word "ancillary." I took the trouble to look up the word in Stroud's Legal Dictionary, and I found there that work is ancillary or incidental to trade or business when it is not necessary thereto or a primary part thereof. That work goes on to state that a builder
and painter are ancillary to the trade of a railway company because they happen to repair or paint railway stations. If learned Judges are capable of holding opinions of that sort, I am sure that the Amendments which have been moved are unnecessary, because the Clause becomes so wide as to embrace all industries of every kind, as all industries are based to a certain extent on agriculture. I hope that the Minister is not hiding behind a reed already badly split. Having put that aspect of the case to him, I trust that he will get away from the word "ancillary" and accept my Amendment. If he will do so, I will move it when the time comes.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: I think we may congratulate ourselves to the extent that the Minister has receded a good deal from the position he took up in Committee. He has only a little further to go to satisfy us completely. It is somewhat unfortunate that the Standing Committee consisted so largely of Members representing rural constituencies in the south, instead of Members representing constituencies in the north, in which there is a considerable proportion of workers who are in no sense agricultural workers. I can speak for some parts of the South West Riding and Derbyshire, and Nottinghamshire more particularly, in which are considerable numbers of persons who cannot be said to be in any sense ancillary to agriculture, but who are carrying on trades which are entirely necessary in that particular area. I am not sure what the particular definition of "ancillary" may be, or how it may be interpreted by the Minister, but we were told in Committee that whilst the driver of a motor lorry who was conveying produce from the village to the town would be considered as ancillary, the man who was mending the road over which the lorry had to travel would not be ancillary. In the same way there are numbers of other trades, such as those of the bricklayer or the joiner or the builder, all of whom construct or repair cottages or possibly actually build the cottages upon the cottage holdings. These people are not ancillary to anyone, yet without them we cannot have a cottage constructed.
Let me put a. case which has not been mentioned before. It is that of a son who is living in a rural area and who goes to
work in a town a few miles away. There is living with him his old father, who all his life has been an agricultural labourer and has got beyond the point when anyone will employ him, but who might perfectly well be occupied upon a cottage holding. The alternatives there are that such a man should be chargeable to the Poor Rate or cultivate a cottage holding assisted by his son. It is an illustration which suggests that a very slight removal of the restrictions in the Bill is very desirable. If we really desire to see an extension of cottage holdings we must remove restrictions which are excessively objectionable.

Mr. PALING: The Minister seems afraid of this business altogether. He seems to want to put into operation a Bill which will provide his party with a good cry among the agricultural labourers, but to hedge the scheme around with so many restrictions, financial and otherwise, that it will be impossible to work it. The Minister has expressed great doubt as to whether, because of the financial conditions attached to the Bill, many of the agricultural labourers would ever get into cottage holdings. I am not sure that he is not right. I am not sure that that is not the intention beneath it all—to say, "We have done this for you," and to hedge the proposal around with restrictions so that it is impossible to work it. There seems to be a difficulty as to who should be allowed to go into these cottage holdings. The Minister said he did not want to encourage other workers who were getting much higher wages than the agricultural labourer, who would be better able to pay the rent and consequently would have a better chance of getting the holdings.
I submit that a better test is to be found in the form of words which has been used in another Bill—the Bill to provide houses for rural workers. The test in that case is that the people shall be agriculturists or others whose incomes are substantially the same. If it is intended that cottage holdings are to be given to the agricultural labourer, because his wages do not guarantee him a decent livelihood—and that is what it amounts to—the same consideration applies to many other people. There are many others whose wages are so low that they cannot keep body and soul together. Indeed there are few industries to which
this consideration would not apply, and I am sure that the colliers would come into this provision if we widened it to the extent that has been suggested. The right hon. Gentleman, doubtless, would be appalled if we applied the test I have indicated, but I am sure it would be a good test. I do not see why this benefit should be restricted to agricultural labourers. If there are others, such as colliers, who want to get back on the land, is that not a desirable thing? We are always talking about the drift from the countryside, and the necessity of getting people from the towns on to the land. Yet everything done by this Tory Government in that respect is done in a small, miserable and inadequate way. They are afraid of spending money on this doctrine, and yet they continue to preach it.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to get away from all these restrictions, and to tell his Cabinet that he is going to do the thing well or not do it at all. Let him tell his Cabinet that there are tens of thousands of people besides agricultural labourers earning insufficient wages. If it is necessary to provide cottage holdings for agricultural labourers, let them be provided for colliers and for everybody else whose wages are on the same level. Let him face his Cabinet as a man, and demand a good Bill or no Bill at all. In these agricultural Debates, I have heard the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), who is a sort of superman among the agriculturists in this House, complain that all the legislation on the Statute Book dealing with small holdings has never succeeded in getting men back to the land. In fact, I believe, in some cases the number is actually going down. Here we are faced with another Bill which, on the Minister's own admission, only provides for a few people, and is limited to agricultural labourers. If the Conservative party are sincere in their desire to put people on the land, they will have to do something bigger and wider than this Bill. I admit that at this stage the Minister cannot bring in a new Bill, but he can give evidence of his good intentions by accepting this Amendment.

Mr. KELLY: I had hoped that the Minister would have said something in response to the appeals made to him on
this subject, and, even at this late stage, I look to him for some reasons why there should not be an opportunity for people other than agricultural labourers to secure cottage holdings. The Minister has come part of the way. He has spoken of those people who are engaged in "adjacent" industries. I wonder what he had in his mind when he agreed to that particular term. He must intend that those who work and live in rural areas should have the opportunity of getting cottage holdings. If that be so, I would like to know who are being excluded? We find in Derbyshire and other parts of the country a great many trades and industries situated in rural areas. In Derbyshire some of the processes connected with the great chemical combine are carried on in rural areas; and some of the hest work in the accumulator trades is done rural areas. By this Bill people engaged in such industries are excluded from cottage holdings. If it is a question of the wages received, then I join with the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) in stating that there is no industry in this country, the workers in which could be debarred by reason of the wages they receive. In this year of grace 1926, there is no trade in this country paying its industrial workers an adequate wage, and in that statement I include every industrial employé in the service of His Majesty's Government. Yet all these people are to be debarred from cottage holdings. It has been of little avail for us to make appeals to the Government but, even if our appeals fail, I hope that regard for those engaged in the rural areas will prevail with the Minister.

Mr. LEE: I join in protesting against the limitation of this Clause, and I would draw attention to the fact that in the mining industry it is not unusual at certain times for men to be engaged only two and a-half or three days of the week in the pits. They spend the rest of the time on holdings. These cottage holdings would be very useful to men who are working short time is the industry. I am reminded that they are to have an eight-hours day—which means that instead of working three days of the week at certain periods of the year, they may only work two days. Therefore, there is the more necessity for these cottage holdings to be open to them, and I want
to join with my hon. Friends in asking for this limitation to be removed. If it is only for the purpose of keeping these people employed during that period of the year when they could be growing food both for themselves and for other people, it is right that this limitation should be withdrawn.

Mr. TAYLOR: I should like to ask the Minister to reconsider the position he has taken up in relation to this Amendment. It may well be said that the only part of this Bill which is really likely to make any considerable contribution to the well-being of our rural population is this Clause, which will make it possible to begin, at any rate, with the building of cottage homes upon the countryside. I suppose that in the days after the War, when we were expecting a very great social progress as a result of the sacrifices which the people had made, many of us had visions of rural England beautified with large numbers of cottage holdings, and a considerable number of ex-service men and of the town population getting a livelihood under better conditions than those which they had formerly endured. I happen to represent a constituency which draws from the countryside a very considerable proportion of the labour for its industries, particularly the so-called unskilled labour, although in these days the lines of demarcation between a skilled and an unskilled occupation get thinner and thinner. Perhaps that is not quite the right term. What I mean is that a considerable number of country-bred young men constantly flow in from the villages to the industries in town. That may be all very well during a period of rising wages, but at the present time we are living in a state of society where a prolonged and permanent trade depression seems to be the normal feature of life, and as a consequence of that we have been living, during the last four or five very unfortunate years, under a system in which the Employment Exchange authorities, instead of being anxious to attract the rural population into the industrial towns, have been busily engaged in trying to force men who had become permanently employed in an industry and members of an urban population, so long as normal trade existed, out into the rural areas to work for the wages commonly paid to agricultural workers. Indeed.
there have been quite a number of cases where men have lost their benefit at the Employment Exchanges because they have found it impossible to go out, of the town and work as rural labourers on a very low wage, and at the same time properly maintain their homes.
9.0 p.m.
I want the Minister to justify the proposition which he puts before us by considering for a moment the position of some of these men who are the victims of this period of trade depression. Hundreds of them in the constituency that I represent were brought up on our countryside. They are quite capable of doing the work of an agricultural worker, and they are not in a position at the present time to resist the pressure that is put upon them to go into the countryside. Those are exactly the type of men whom the Government ought to be doing its best to attract back to the countryside. We are over-populated in our industrial centres to-day, and these men, who are of country origin, ought to be encouraged to go back into our rural areas, and I can imagine no greater attraction for the man who has been thrifty enough to get a few pounds together than the possibility of getting his own little home, with a little bit of land, to give him a sense of independence, and to acquire that upon reasonable terms. I hope the Minister will realise that not only the quarrymen and other people engaged in the villages are entitled to consideration in this matter, hut that those thousands of people whom we have in all our great cities, who amount perhaps to hundreds of thousands if you take the whole of our country, but at any rate the tens of thousands who are country bred men, although now in the towns, should be got back into our villages. Such an achievement would be of great advantage from a national point of view. I hope the Minister will realise that the provision of homes in this Bill is perhaps the most important part of it, and that he will give us an opportunity of encouraging these men to go back into the rural areas by making the advantages of the Bill open to them on equal terms with other agricultural workers.

Captain FOXCROFT: I should like to associate myself with the high ideals which have been moderately put by several hon. Members opposite. I know
that we all desire, perhaps more than anything else, that the town population should get back to the country, and that we should ease the pressure on the towns by having a more populated countryside, and I am sure that what they suggest would be of very great help to us in England in general. But I gather from the Minister's speech that the whole difficulty is one of pounds, shillings, and pence. We are now in very straitened circumstances, owing to various recent causes, and we cannot afford to coo what we would like to do. Men with small holdings must know something about working them, and if you are to work a small holding, and you come straight

from the town, you must be trained for the purpose. That means an extra expense, and every small holding that you hand over to smallholder is an expense to the country. Therefore, although I associate myself with the high ideals that have been voiced by hon. Members opposite, at the present moment I think it is not practical politics to carry them into effect, and I consider Personally that what the Minister is proposing to do will be of very great help to the agricultural industry in this country.

Question put, "That the word industry 'stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 104.

Division No. 514.]
AYES.
[9.2 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Forrest, W.
Merriman, F. B.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Albery, Irving James
Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Atholl, Duchess of
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Goff, Sir Park
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Murchison, C. K.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Neville, R. J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. Exeter)


Bennett, A. J.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nuttall, Ellis


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hammersley, S. S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hanbury, C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harvey, G (Lambeth, Kennington)
Perring, Sir William George


Braithwaite, A. N.
Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brass, Captain W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Briscoe, Richard George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Preston. William


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Raine, W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rice. Sir Frederick


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hills, Major John Walter
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cassels, J. D.
Hilton, Cecil
Rye, F. G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Christie, J. A.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiten'n)
Savery, S. S.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Huntingfield, Lord
Sheppersan, E. W.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hurd, Percy A.
Skelton, A. N.


Cope, Major William
Hurst, Gerald B.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (M Idl'n & P'bl's)
Smith, R W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Locker, Herbert William
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lougher, L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (1. of W.)
Waddington, R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacIntyre, Ian
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
McLean, Major A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Elveden, Viscount
Macquisten, F. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


England, Colonel A.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wells, S. R.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fielden, E. B.
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Finburgh, S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Ford, Sir P. J.
Margesson, Captain D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Wise, Sir Fredric
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Withers, John James
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Womersley, W. J.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Lord Stanley.


Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batcy, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Kuddersfield)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Henry Heydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D
Thurtle, Ernest


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Abcravon)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duckworth John
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Fenny, T. D.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wiggins, William Martin


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colns)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Purcell, A. A.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Allen


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Parkinson.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne)—in page 9, line 30, at the end, to insert the words
(e) nothing in this Section shall authorise the compulsory acquisition for the purpose of providing cottage holdings of any parcel of land of three acres or less in extent on which there is in existence a dwelling-house occupied by a bona fide agricultural labour or a person employed in a rural industry on any part of such land"—
is out of place. It should come upon the Schedule. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), to leave out Subsection (2), appears to me to cover the ground of the last Amendment discussed, and the Debate has been general upon that; hut, of course, if any hon. Member would like a Division on it, it would not be out of Older to put it. The same applies to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse)—in page 9, line 32, to leave out from the word "industry," to the word "as," in
line 36, and to insert instead thereof the words
shall mean any industry of a substantially rural character carried on in or adjacent to a village.
Amendments made:
In page 9, line 33, leave out from the word "village" to the word "industry" in line 31, and insert instead thereof the words "being an."
In line 36, leave out the weds "as may from time to time be," and insert instead thereof the words "for the time heing."—[Mr. Guinness.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next Amendment—to leave out Clause 19—has been covered by a previous discussion.

CLAUSE 22.—(Repeals.)

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr. Fealty) I understand from Mr. Speaker that part of the matter involved has already been discussed, and, therefore, there can be no long debate upon it.

Mr. FENBY: I beg to move, in page 14, line 27, to leave out the words
(including those relating to the Small Holdings Commissioners).
This Amendment raises a very vital issue. Up to the time when this Bill appeared, the question of the provision of small holdings have been regarded from two points of view, first from the national point of view and, second, from the local point of view. Without this Amendment the Schedule would do away with the Small Holdings Commissioners, which would mean taking away a measure of support from a man who wants a small holding when no attempt to provide one is made by the local authority. When the Act of 1908 was drawn up it was realised that it would not be always possible to obtain land for small holdings, even though the authority were desirous of meeting the demand, because it would not always be possible to obtain the land by Voluntary means, and it was then thought wise that the Ministry should have representatives in particular areas to assist county authorities faced with this difficulty in obtaining land. Between 1908 and 1914 a very large number of compulsory orders were obtained, but, at the same time, a large number of compulsory orders were avoided, becauses in cases where local authorities had failed to obtain land by Voluntary arrangements the Commissioners came in, and as they had behind them the authority and the pressure of a Government Department they were able more speedily and more amicably to obtain land.
If we study the figures showing how many acres have been provided since the 1908 Act and the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, and study also the figures giving the number of smallholders, it will be found that they vary considerably among the authorities charged with administering the Act. Some county authorities are absolutely behind the times, whereas other authorities have made very considerable progress, and if the backward ones had done anything

like as much as the others we should have had a very much larger number of smallholders, cultivating a good many more acres, with a much greater supply of food from the land. It is this urge of the Commissioners that it is the object of my Amendment to secure.

Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS: As you pointed out in calling this Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it really covers substantially the same point as the first New Clause which was rejected this afternoon. It is one of a series of Amendments to give the Small Holdings Commissioners the powers which they exercised under the Act of 1908. We wish to work in partnership with the local authorities, and we believe that the financial inducements which we offer in this Bill to help them to provide small holdings will be adequate to secure their ready co-operation in the work. We have had experience of how much can be done by the method of financial persuasion. There have never been any Commissioners to drive the local authorities in connection with agricultural education, and yet, by means of a carefully administered system of grants, astonishing progress in agricultural education has been made in the last 20 years, at considerable expense to the local authorities. The attitude of the county councils towards small holdings has changed very much since 1908. All have now small holdings estates, and all have zealous and experienced staffs, and, Personally, I have no doubt we shall get better results from their willing co-operation than by reinstating this obsolete system of Small Holdings Commissioners and attempting to force the authorities to provide small holdings.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 104.

Division No. 515.]
AYES.
[9.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Balniel, Lord
Blundell, F. N.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boothby, R. J. G.


Albery, Irving James
Harnett, Major Sir Richard
Bourne. Captain Robert Croft


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Braithwaite, A. N.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bennett, A. J.
Brass, Captain W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Betterton, Henry B.
Briscoe, Richard George


Brittain, Sir Harry
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson,Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Perring, Sir William George


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Preston, William


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cassels, J. D.
Hills, Major John Walter
Raine, W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hilton, Cecil
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Christie, J. A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rice, Sir Frederick


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rye, F. G.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cope, Major William
Huntingfield, Lord
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, putney)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Savery, S. S.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Skelton, A. N.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Looker, Herbert William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Drewe, C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray Fraser


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacIntyre, Ian
Thom, Lt. Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Elveden, Viscount
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, F. A.
Waddington, R.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Fielden, E. B.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Finburgh, S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Malone, Major P. B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Frece, Sir Walter de
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells, S. R.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gault, Lieut. -Col. Andrew Hamilton
Merrlman, F. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Meyer, Sir Frank
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Murchison, C. K.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Neville, R. I.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Hammersley, S. S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Hanbury, C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nuttall, Ellis
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Haslam, Henry C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Lord Stanley.


Hawke, John Anthony
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenall, T.
March, S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maxton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Baker, Walter
Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick


Barnes, A.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, H.


Bromfield, William
Hardie, George D.
Naylor, T. E.


Bromley, J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, George Harold


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.


Buchanan, G.
Hayes, John Henry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H.
Purcell, A. A.


Clowes, S.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, J. H. (Hudderaneld)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)


Compton, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R.,Elland)


Dalton, Hugh
Jonas, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sexton, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Day, Colonel Harry
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dennison, R.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Duckworth, John
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Duncan, c.
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Dunnico, H.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lindley, F. W.
Taylor, R. A.


England, Colonel A.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Forrest, W.
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gardner, J. P.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Gosling, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.




Trevslyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Wright, W.


Varley, Frank B.
Wiggins, William Martin
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Viant, S. P.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)



Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Williams, David (Swansea, East]
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Webb. Rt. Hon. Sidney
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Mr. Fenby and Mr. Percy Harris.


Westwood, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

FIRST SCFIEDULE.—(Minor Amendments.)

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 15, line 7, at the end, to insert the words
Section 41—
In Sub-section (2) the words "and also avoid taking any land the taking of which will render the remainder of the land untaken not reasonably capable of being cultivated as a separate holding or will adversely affect production, and for these purposes," shall be substituted for the words "and for that purpose.
This Amendment raises raises a question which has often been discussed in this House. I do not say that the person whose farm is taken is not compensated, or not compensated quite reasonably for the inconvenience to which he is put, but you may take out of the estate the good land which enables the bad land to contribute its share towards producing the food supplies of the nation. You take the good land and the other land is left stranded. I do hope the Minister will consider the point, because I feel what is really desired is that you should take the whole estate, if possible, for small holdings, and that you should put your small holdings on the good land where they are together and where they will be easily managed and easily supervised by the county council. We should not pick several good fields out of A's farm or out of B's farm, making it very expensive to administer, and create a great deal of damage.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS: My hon. and gallant Friend is proposing an Amendment to a very carefully drafted Section of the Small Holdings Act, 1918, in which certain desiderations are enjoined upon a council which makes and the Board of Agriculture which confirms a compulsory Order. I will not read the Section, but it has very full instructions as to considering the convenience of other preperty and so forth. I do not think that we should add very much to this carefully balanced Section by accepting the further words which are proposed. My hon. and gallant Friend has told us
that he does not complain of the general administration of compensation. In the Amendment the hon. and gallant Member draws attention to the fact that severance in the acquisition of land will render the remainder of the land untaken not reasonably capable of being cultivated as a separate holding, or will adversely affect production. I would like to point out that there are special safeguards dealing with severance in the Acquisition of Land Act and the Small Holdings Act, and its view of these safeguards I do not think we need to strengthen up what is already the practice in deciding these cases.
There is a new element introduced into these considerations by the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member that we should consider whether any Order will adversely affect production. I do not see how we could decide such a point. If the land of a man growing potatoes were to be taken and devoted to small holdings for stock raising, it very difficult to get any proper comparison of productivity. Even if we inserted the provision which is contained in this Amendment, I do not think the county council or the. Ministry of Agriculture would know how to apply it, and in these circumstances I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this Amendment.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the action of the hon. and gallant Member for the City of Oxford (Captain Bourne) in putting down this Amendment. I would remind hon. Members that he moved the same Amendment during the Committee stage and after obtaining the reply of the Minister he withdrew it. Therefore, I fail to see why the hon. and gallant Member, who had not the courage during the Committee stage to press his Amendment, should now waste time by pressing it at this stage.

Amendment negatived.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move in page 15, line 7, at the end, to insert the words
Section 41—
At the end of Sub-section (2) insert the words "and where a cottage is to
be taken for the purpose of a cottage holding shall have regard as to whether such cottage is reasonably required for the maintenance and upkeep of the estate of the owner of such cottage, or for the proper cultivation of any farm in the occupation of ouch owner or of any of his tenants,
This is an Amendment which I withdrew in Committee because the Minister promised to consider my suggestion, and that is why I take the liberty of moving it again. The whole point is that where a cottage is taken the point must be considered whether such cottage is reasonably required for the maintenance and upkeep of the estate of the owner. Although the Minister of Agriculture has stated that Section 41 was carefully thought out at the time of the 1908 Act, I submit to him that the cottage holdings in this Measure were not contemplated when the 1908 Act was introduced. There is no doubt that there is a good deal of apprehension in the country about the effect of Clause 12 of this Bill, and I attempt in this Amendment to put in what I believe to be the ordinary practice of the Ministry when they receive an application to hold an inquiry for the granting of a compulsory order. To take cottages away from a farm which may be absolutely essential to the proper working of the farm is not likely to benefit agriculture. It is absolutely necessary that you must have accommodation for those labourers who look after livestock, and they must have accommodation within a reasonable distance of where the livestock is kept. Often these men have to be up all night, and it is impossible to carry on their work if they are obliged to live several miles from the farm. Therefore there is nothing more important than that these men should be housed within a reasonable distance of their work. It is for these reasons that I am anxious that the owners should be protected against the compulsory acquisition of cottages under these circumstances. These men are entitled to be provided with cottages to live in within a reasonable distance of their work. For these reasons I hope the Minister will accept my proposal.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid my answer to this Amendment must be the same as it was to the last, namely, that
I am not prepared to reopen the carefully drafted arrangements contained in Section 41 of the Act of 1908. As a matter of fact, Sub-section (2) of that Section does enjoin the council, when making or applying for an Order, as far as practicable to avoid displacing any considerable number of agricultural labourers employed on or about the farm. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the considerations which he has urged are exactly such considerations as would be borne in mind by any council or by the Minister. In addition to that, if an Order is made, the arbitrator fixes the price which secures, to the owner the replacement value of the cottages which may be removed. I know these grievances are present in certain people's minds as to the effect of this Act, but I believe these Amendments are founded on bogeys, and it is impossible to lay bogeys by legislation.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the action of the hon. and gallant Member for the City of Oxford (Captain Bourne) in putting down this Amendment. He moved the same Amendment during the Committee stage and then withdrew it, and he failed to show that he had sufficient courage to induce him to press it. The hon. and gallant Member is an expert on agriculture, and that is why he has been returned by the burgesses of Oxford, which is a great agricultural centre in this country. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the City of Oxford has the reputation of -being the home of lost causes. It is certainly very difficult to understand why an hon. and gallant Gentleman representing the City of Oxford, and who takes such a keen personal interest in agriculture, should put down Amendments in this way, causing considerable expense, to which I as a taxpayer object.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: With reference to the two speeches which have just been delivered by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones), may I say how entirely the. House agrees with the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) in the action he has taken? I think it is much wiser for him to have placed these Amendments before the whole House, because he is very likely to meet with a larger and broader treat-
ment here than he received from the inferior intelligence in the Committee.

Mr. MARDY JONES: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. and, especially, for a learned Member of this House, to point to another hon. Member?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have known it done.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 22; Noes, 184.

Division No. 516.]
AYES.
[9.46 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Mayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R.,Elland)


Clowes, S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lawson, John James
Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.



Greenall, T.
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Captain Bourne and Sir George


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
March, S.
Courthope.


Haslam, Henry C.
Potts, John S.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Finburgh, S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Agg-Gardntr, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Margesson, Captain D.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Foresner-Walker, Sir L.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Albery, Irving James
Forrest, W.
Merriman, F. B.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Meyer, Sir Frank


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Atholl, Duchess of
Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Salfour, George (Hampstead)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Balniel, Lord
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Murchison, C. K.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Neville, R. J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nuttall, Ellis


Bennett, A. J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hammersley, S. S.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hanbury, C.
Perring, Sir William George


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Harris, Percy A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Braithwaite, A. N.
Hawke, John Anthony
Preston, William


Brass, Captain W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Raine, W.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bromfield, William
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bromley, J.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'tt'y)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hilis, Major John Walter
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hilton, Cecil
Rye, F. G.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cassels, J. D.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Savery, S. S.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Shepperson, E. W.


Clayton, G. C.
Huntingfield, Lord
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hutchlson, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cope, Major William
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stamford, T. W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stanley. Col. Hon. G.F.(W1ll'sden, E.)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lee, F.
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Looker, Herbert William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lougher, L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomas. Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Drewe, C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Duckworth, John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacIntyre, Ian
Tinker, John Joseph


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Townend, A. E.


Elveden, Viscount
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Varley, Frank B.


England, Colonel A.
Macquisten, F. A.
Waddington, R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mac Robert Alexander M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Ward, Lt.-Co(. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Fenby, T. D.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Flalden, E. B.
Malone, Major P. B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Wells, S. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric



Wiggins, William Martin
Womersley, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Viscount Curzon.


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)



Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time.'

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I am surprised at the Socialist party taking the line they did about county councils. It is even more astonishing that the Liberal party, who were once in favour of democracy, have joined the Socialists in their distrust of county councils. After all, in any democratically constituted body even, if you have nationalisation you have to use the county councils as your agents. It is quite unfair to saddle them with suspicion, because everyone who has been on agricultural county committees or has discussed this question of smallholders, ex-service men or whatever it is, will agree that the interest of this appeals to men of all parties alike and politics does not come into it. The councils also have had a very great deal more experience in these last five or six years than they ever had before and whether small holdings are to be a success or a failure depends ninety-nine times out of a hundred on whether they are run by men of experience or not. It is impossible to lay down rules as to the rent or anything else of a small holding. It must be left to those on the spot, who are the best judges. The difficulty we have, both in farmers and in smallholders, is the difficulty you always have in agricultural enterprises, the difference between first, second and third class land. Farms, allotments and small holdings will always be successful on good land. The difficulty before all of us lies in making them successful on second and third class land, of which so much of our country consists.
10.0 P.M.
People who are suspicious of county agricultural committees might also remember the agricultural system of the country. We have, after all, the Agricultural Council of England, who are the advisers of the Minister and who include representatives not only of the farmers but of smallholders, allotment holders and women, and any grievances that arise from time to time can be, and are, represented there. Not only the
Minister of Agriculture is always present, but also the late Minister in the Labour party, and I am certain the advice they get from the Agricultural Council of England is more representative of agricultural England than any other body we have. I am glad to see that the Government is putting into practice what this Council recommended in their agricultural policy two years ago, especially in the matter of these cottage holdings. The Agricultural Council recommended them very strongly, and I think all sides of the House will agree that that is perhaps the best part of the Bill. I am interested in small holdings in more ways than one, as I am a. member of the Small Holdings County Committee. The crux of the problem is not private ownership or State ownership. It is simply a matter of cost and price, and the policy of the Government in this Hill comes nearer to solving that problem than that of any other party. I should like to ask the Minister if he could find sonic means of consolidating into one set of Regulations all these various Acts—1908, 1919, and so forth—affecting small holdings, allotments and cottage holdings. It is impossible even for hon. and learned Gentlemen really to get at. the truth of what many of these items mean and it would he for the good of the whole country if we could get them clarified and have the Regulations altogether in one Act.

Mr. BUXTON: My friends and I, who are keenly desirous of seeing an extension of small holdings, are bitterly disappointed that the Bill is not one which is likely to make rapid progress or to be a thoroughly efficient instrument for the purpose. Indeed when you consider that the, perhaps, 200,000 smallholders in the country are a diminishing quantity in spite of what has been done by statutory machinery, in spite of the 30,000 smallholders the Minister has told us of, you have to stem the leakage that is going on and it is a very small contribution, with all the expense involved, that the Bill will contribute. Indeed if you
regard the fall in small holdings and the failure to make progress in that respect as amounting to a very serious trouble, and almost a conflagration which has to be put out, the Bill is not doing much more than trying to put out a fire with a syringe. We really want to see a fair and economic opportunity for small holdings, and if we had the opportunity we should enable the councils, or whatever land authority was in control of the land, without extra expense to the taxpayer to re-distribute land in small holdings exactly as a great landowner or as the Crown does at present. There are two main blemishes, it seems to me, on this Bill. There is the question of efficiency and there is the rather unpleasant complexion which it wears to me of excessive partisanship. I hope a great many hon. Members opposite can put their hands on their hearts and declare that they see no attraction in the Bill beyond pure public interest and the promotion of successful agriculture. It is only human nature if certain other attractions are seen in a great increase in the number of smallholders of land, and if no one is very conscious of excessive partisan motive in a Bill of this kind, motives in this world are inextricably mixed and their position reminds me of those lines of Matthew Arnold about those who, with half-open eyes, tread the borderland betwixt vice and virtue.
It is a sound psychofogical calculation that the possession of land and property has a certain effect upon the political views of a great many men. It is a probability that the economic position afforded to a large new set of men by the artificial and extensive action of the State will modify the views of those men. There is a curious parallel between such a psychofogical effect and the doctrines of Karl Marx. I do not know whether the Minister is much of a student of Karl Marx, but it is clearly set out in his economic interpretation of history that a man's character and views are found to be due to the economic surroundings in which he finds himself. The bias which is shown in this Bill appears in one respect which has not been very fully cleared up. It appears in the somewhat peculiar method by which a man becomes an owner through the continuance of
payment of rent for a certain period and taking over the cost of arrears. I have never heard an adequate explanation from the Minister on the grounds on which this peculiar method is based. I suppose the calculation is that the present value of the rent after 60 years is equivalent to the present value of saving the expenses of repairs for that period. But is that not an extraordinarily rough and ready way of arriving at it? The cost of repairs is such a varying percentage on different kinds of land. I remember a property, with which I had something to do, where the cost. of repairs was cut down to 4 per cent. If an owner of that property had been asked to part with the holding on the basis proposed by the Bill, he would have jibbed; he would not have been receiving, in the saving of such a small cost of repairs, anything equivalent to the loss of the rent at the end of 60 years. I do hope the Minister will, as a matter of information, tell the House a little more of the way in which this method has been arrived at. It is not an obvious one which would have appeared to anyone to arrive at in calculating of the value.
The practical objection to the Bill is that it is cumbrous and that it is not efficient. You weight it with this tremendous cost, so great that. the Minister estimates it will cost £250 for every holding. There is mention in the financial Memorandum of;£25 a year, and perhaps the Minister will make it a little clearer what is the term over which that loss is expected to continue. If you were to sell the land on the basis we have indicated this evening, which is in point of fairness one of high public integrity, you would not incur this loss at all, and you would be able to pursue your policy on a vaster scale. As to the machinery of the Bill, if you had the land in the position in which Crown lands are now, you would not be wanting any Small Holdings Bill at all. It does not require a Bill to produce small holdings on Crown lands. The House cannot be too familiar with the extraordinary development which has taken place on Crown lands since 1907, without any increase Of subsidy whatsoever. A report which has been issued shows the great increase which has taken place, and that there has been a minimum amount of friction with tenants. The land has been taken by arrangement with tenants who have almost invariably
been ready to meet the reasonable demand to give up a portion of their holding. This is a very interesting report. You ought not to require special machinery to take land for the particular purpose of creating small holdings, which adds enormously to the cost of the proceeding. What is the moral that occurs to us? The moral is that we should extend the land which is in the possession of the Crown to the widest possible degree. It seems to me to be a great pity that an opportunity of creating small holdings on a rapid scale and on a great scale is not being taken. It is half a loaf, and half a loaf is always better than no bread. I hope in this Bill that you are not setting back the clock, but it looks to me as if there might be a great slump as a result of removing these stimulating elements which have existed in the Act of 1908. Though we trust there will result a great increase of small holdings, a great opportunity has been lost for a really effective Bill.

Mr. HASLAM: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has again raised the question which we have debated at considerable length to-day, that of ownership versus tenancy. He seemed to impute to us on this side of the House some kind of unworthy motive behind what we say in favour of ownership. We believe in ownership, and I fail to see what there is unworthy about it. Why should it be unworthy to believe in ownership, and only worthy to believe in tenancy. Surely hon. Members of the Opposition are a little unreasonable in this matter. Member after Member on the other side stated this afternoon that small cultivators do not desire ownership. But the Bill does not compel small cultivators to be owners; it gives them the opportunity of being so. If there is no desire on their part to be owners the Bill in that respect will be of no effect.
There has also been another criticism put forward, but not so much this afternoon, and that is that small holdings are not economic. That is a very much harder criticism to meet, and it is a criticism which seems to be much more in line with the general principles of hon. Members opposite than the previous one in favour of tenancy. If there were no other considerations, perhaps it would be very difficult to meet that criticism, but there are other con-
siderations. The land is the nursery of the race, and we who represent county districts believe that unless we can maintain a healthy and hardy population on the land of this country we shall be unable to maintain the great position which we have won. That is the justification for the expenditure of public money with the object of attaching men to the land.

Mr. DUNCAN: Somebody else's land.

Mr. HASLAM: Their own land. There have been other criticisms, although I am glad to think there has been no real opposition. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seemed to desire that the Bill should create smallholders on a very much larger scale. In that he seemed to agree with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who, I believe, on other occasions has pointed to the hundreds of thousands of agricultural labourers who are pining to become independent cultivators, and who under this particular Bill may not attain that opportunity. In that regard, perhaps both right hon. Gentlemen do not pay sufficient regard to the facilities under which men can now get allotments. The fact that this Bill proceeds in a slow and steady manner is one that particularly recommends it to my mind. He is no true friend of small holdings who wishes to introduce indiscriminately large numbers of small cultivators, many of whom would be untried and unsuitable, to the land. Surely, our experience in 1919 showed us that.
I believe that under this Bill, under the county councils, we can see that a suitable type of man is put upon the land and that, therefore, we are building on a sound foundation. The present land system of this country offers no inconsiderable opportunities for men to rise. A very large proportion of the present farmers have risen from the ranks. Opportunities differ in different districts, but in very many districts there is no difficulty whatever in acquiring land in large or small lots, and men are doing it and rising every day. It is in the belief that this Bill will facilitate that process, that it will create openings in those districts where openings, perhaps, are not so plentiful as they might be, and that it will in that way tend to keep alive interest in agriculture and keep men on the land, that I support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. FENBY: I had hoped to be able heartily to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture in the interval between his Second Reading speech and the speech he made on the Third Reading of the Bill, on the fact that the puny infant which he introduced on Second Reading would have grown into something strong and healthy. But persuasion, persistence and argument have been absolutely wasted upon the right hon. Gentleman. Instead of doing anything to stimulate the growth of his young child, he seems to have taken every opportunity to dwarf it so that it might be less healthy on the Third Reading than it was on the Second Reading. An hon. and gallant Member opposite said that the Liberal party in this House had been very critical of the county councils. He should particularise that criticism. What the Liberal party have said, and they have been joined in this by the Labour party, is that there are some county authorities which have done their level best to carry out the terms of the Acts of 1908 and 1919, but that there arc certain backward authorities which need a spur. No hon. Member opposite dare say that there does not exist backward county authorities in regard to the provision of small holdings. If any evidence of that is required may I refresh the memory of the Minister of Agriculture. In July last he said that there were nearly 15,000 unsatisfied applicants for small holdings.
That is not the whole story. If you had 15.000 persons who have applied, and are still unsatisfied, how many applicants are there who have been so disgusted with the lack of success of people who have applied that their demand is not vocal at the present? They need a more sympathetic Government and a more progressive Minister. They need a Minister who takes a larger view of his duties, and the magnitude of the problem with which be is faced. The hon. Member who spoke last said something about the facilities that people had for obtaining allotments, but will he believe me that according to the Minister of Agriculture there are still 13,500 unsatisfied applicants for allotments? It is evident, therefore, that the Minister has neglected a great opportunity, and also a very real duty, in leaving this Bill in the very feeble condition it is at the moment. What I complain of is this, that knowing, as he does, the unsatisfied demand of 15,000 applicants for small holdings, and be-
tween 13,000 and 14,000 unsatisfied applicants for allotments, he is saying to the county authorities: "We will leave this problem to you: we have done what we can. We will give you a piece of machinery, and you must do the best you can." Everybody, even a county council, and very often a Cabinet Minister himself, is much. better for being looked after and spurred on.
This Bill marks downward step in the ease of those men who are desirous of earning their living upon the land. For the first time since 1908 there will be an absence of machinery, after this Bill is passed, for ascertaining what is the real demand for small holdings in this country. The Government in this Bill hand it over completely to the county councils, and there will not remain any urge on the part of the Department on county councils. There will be no machinery by which to find out what demand does exist for small holdings; and it is a demand which is growing. An hon. Member opposite said something about our criticising county councils in this democratic age; that we on this side of the House wanted to interfere with local authorities. That observation comes rather peculiarly from a supporter of a Government that took so many millions from the Road Fund; it does not come particularly well from the supporter of a Government which, by a special Act, interferes with the jurisdiction of boards of guardians. A very long catalogue could be compiled—

Captain P. MACDONALD: On a point of Order. What has the Road Fund to do with the Bill under discussion?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was dealing with the question of over-riding the local authorities.

Mr. FENBY: I want to impress upon the Minister the magnitude of the opportunity that he is allowing to go by. Someone has said that small holdings are not an economic proposition, and if that criticism be true, which I do not admit, the Minister has dune nothing whatever to meet it by this Bill. I appealed to him in Committee, after seeing that he had proposed, under the head of a definition of a small holding, to increase the amount for the calculation for Income Tax purposes from £50 to £100—I appealed to him to go a little further for a special reason. There are certain sparsely
populated areas in the rural parts of the country where 50 acres are of no use at all. You want to get nearer 75 acres. The Minister refused to put in a definition so far as acreage is concerned. He said "We have gone as far as we can by increasing the annual value which is calculated for Income Tax purposes from £50 to £100." What does that mean? How much is it extending a small holding in area? An increase from £50 to £100 might be all right if you were dealing with pre-War figures and values, but everybody knows that the difficulty of the authority that wants to set up small holdings to-day is the cost of buildings and equipment. That is the bugbear. The increase from £50 to 1100 will not increase the acreage by more than 10 acres, which is the only contribution which the Minister has made to the extension of small holdings, as far as acreage is concerned. Any county authority could get over that problem if the right hon. Gentleman had left the provisions in the Bill as it was. You may let 50 acres to a man. There is nothing in the Acts to say that you shall not let any land to a woman. There may be nothing to say that you shall do so, but if the man has 50 acres there is no objection whatever, and the Minister could not raise objection to a woman having 10 acres. There has been a great opportunity of rendering a service to the small holdings movement in this country, and the Minister has let it go by absolutely.
We have had a good deal of lip service and White Paper service rendered to the great industry of agriculture I have read again and again that an important member of the Government is to make an important pronouncement on agriculture on a certain date at a certain place. I have waited breathlessly to know what the gigantic programme of the Government was to be for this ancient and important industry. Then I got a White Paper, and I did not know what we were to have. Then the Minister conies down with the puny attempt of this Bill to deal with the pressing problem of helping those who have the least chance of helping themselves. He says, "You must be satisfied with this." An hon. and gallant Member opposite referred to the best part of the Bill as that which deals with cottage holdings. Had he been in his place I could have given him the cheering information that
what he calls the best part of the Bill will never become operative in any sensible area in this country. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), while very anxious about the principle of occupying ownership or peasant proprietorship, put down an Amendment because he was convinced, as I am convinced, that the Minister has so hedged round the purchase Clauses of this Bill as to prevent them from being made operative by the county authorities. While he renders lip service to these provisions, he does everything by letter and spirit to prevent them operating, and there is going to be very little encouragement or practical help for the people who want cottage holdings.
The greatest count against the Minister is this. Everyone who studies the rural problem and the position in the densely-populated areas is anxious to keep people in the country, to give them some method of earning a decent livelihood in the country and to give them decent houses so that they may not continue to move info the cities and become competitors with the town dwellers for both employment and housing. We also want the man in the city to have the opportunity to go to the country if he so desires. Yet the Minister declares that he cannot give awry terms more generous than these in relation to cottage holdings. He says, in effect, "We cannot do with people coming out of the towns and cities into the country to take advantage of a scheme of this kind." Did anybody ever hear such a complete nullification of a Government's intention? I can only describe the Government's intentions in this matter as merely pious intentions. They are not endeavouring to deal with the rural problem as it ought to be dealt with by a Government which has a very heavy responsibility placed upon it in that connection. They have the power behind them. Surely, they have sufficient acumen and initiative to produce a scheme which is worthy of a Government in their position instead of this small contribution towards the solution of a pressing problem. What I have to say further is not so contentious. As a member of a county authority, disappointed as I am with the Minister and with this Bill—his child—yet in any small point where this Bill will improve
the lot of any man or further the small holdings movement, I am prepared to do what I can in a sincere endeavour to get what little good there is out of it. I am afraid I shall be disappointed, but if there is any merit in the Bill, I as a member of a county authority, will do my best to see that it is applied.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: I desire to express my whole-hearted support of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to give an opportunity to the agricultural worker to attain what has always been his ambition, that is to acquire a small holding and to become, himself, a farmer. The Bill is to be administered by the county councils and I admit that a great responsibility is being placed on the county councils. On one side of the House it is feared that the county councils will fail to administer the Bill satisfactorily. On the other hand, it is feared by some that the county councils, in administering the Bill, will disturb the sitting tenants of land to their prejudice. I want to submit that if the applicant for a small holding will use patience, and if the county council will use discretion, both these fears are groundless. In the county from which I come there are the largest number of smallholders in proportion to area of any county in the country. These small holdings have been obtained without the representation on the county council of any agricultural worker, and without the inVoluntary disturbance of any single occupier of land in that area, and how has that been done? In the natural course of events land becomes vacant in every county, and in practically every parish, owing to death or to other disturbance of a tenant, and when this land becomes vacant, there is the opportunity for a county council to acquire that vacant land and, having acquired it, to satisfy the demand for small holdings in that area.
As I said before, this Bill makes it possible for the agricultural worker to realise his ambition. It is a reward that we can give to the agricultural worker throughout the country districts for the exercise of diligence, ability, and energy in his work, and, as far as I am concerned, I will welcome any Measure of whatever kind that helps to promote the attainment of a reward for the exercise
by any man of energy and ability; whether that man be a representative of the Capitalist class or of the Labour party. This Bill has been brought forward in the interests of the agricultural worker by a Conservative Government. It is assumed by a great many that we, on this side, are the representatives of the Capitalist class, and that as such we have no desire to bring forward any legislation whatever to help the other classes in the community. I submit that that opinion of us is absolutely wrong. We, on this side, recognise no class representation whatever, and we have no intention at any time of bringing forward any class legislation. This Bill is brought forward in the interests of the working men of the country, and not for other classes, and I want to submit to the House that the agricultural workers throughout the country, when this Bill becomes law, as it will, will realise that a Conservative Government is not only desirous but capable of bringing forward a. Bill in their interests, as well as in the interests of every and any other class of the community. For these reasons, I whole-heartedly support this Bill.

Mr. GUINNESS: We have had a long debate, and I think the House will only want to hear a very little from me in answer to the points that have been raised on Third healing. The right hon. Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) asked how we arrived at our basis of annual payments for the man who would take a small holding on ownership terms. The obligation to do, not only tenant's repairs hut also landlord's repairs, was considered a fair equivalent for the remission of any Sinking Fund, and we believe that under that system a fair bargain will be made between the local authority and the owner of the freehold of the small holding. The advantage of a uniform system of this kind is that the smallholder will know what arrangements he can rely upon. There wilt not be a great variety between one county and another in bargains which they strike on the public funds which have been supplied to them, and we also believe that the smallholder will do the repairs more cheaply, and get a better value, than if they were left to the county council, and if the smallholder had to pay the equivalent in cash by means of a sinking fund
The right hon. Gentleman asked how long the loss of £25 which is estimated on each small holding will continue. This loss, this subvention, will run as long as the loans are outstanding, and the right hon. 'Member will remember that loans for small holdings run for different periods, up to 60 years for buildings, and up to 80 years for land. It is only possible to form rather a rough estimate, but we believe, at any rate, that during the first years until the shortest terms run off, £25 is a fair figure. The right hon. Gentleman told us that this Bill was an attempt to put out a fire with a syringe. I think he must recognise that we cannot set up small holdings on a whofsale scale without very serious and disastrous disturbance to the existing cultivators of land. The best land, which is the kind of land the smallholder must have, is very generally occupied at the present time, and unless we are to inflict hardship and decrease our agricultural production, we must go gradually in this matter of the provision of further small holdings.
The number of those who need State help is a little exaggerated. The small holdings which have been set up by the State are only a very small fraction of the total number of small holdings, and there is no need for us to spoon-feed those of the small-holding class who are able to make their way without State help. Besides that, there is a very definite limit to the number of workers who are either desirous or qualified to take small holdings. There could be nothing more disastrous to the industry than to put people on small holdings unless they have the capacity to make them a success. We have based our financial estimates on the average number settled on small holdings in the years between the passage of the Small Holdings Act, 1908, and the outbreak of the War. In those days, the task was comparatively easy, because the provision of these small holdings cost nothing to the State. Now, however, the position is very different, and it involves a heavy charge.
I think it comes with peculiar ill-grace from the Liberal party to say that our Bill will achieve nothing say the creation of small holdings threw no burden on the State, When they were in a position to go on at whatever pace they chose, they were content with the same
rate of provision we are aiming at under this Bill. The hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) told us the cottage holdings part of the Bill was going to be quite inoperative, that, with his experience of local government, he was sure no cottage holdings would be provided. Then he went on to criticise us for having limited those who are to be eligible for these cottage holdings to agricultural workers. He said we ought to throw them open to the people in the towns. He accused me of being a reactionary because I wanted to keep the people in the country and did not want to bring hack from the towns the large population who could live on these cottage holdings. Really, I did not understand that point, seeing he had already told us these cottage holdings would not he provided. I am not ashamed of saying that I think the first problem to be solved is that of keeping people in the country who are skilled in agriculture, and who sometimes find it difficult to get openings. I put in the second place, though also an important place, the getting of people back from the towns when we can provide them with an opportunity of finding a livelihood on the land.

Mr. FENBY: Not under this Bill.

Mr. GUINNESS: We are providing for them under this Bill by the creation of further small holdings. I would remind the hon. Member that besides these proposals for cottage holdings, for which he has no use, we are providing for all alike, town population as well as country population, the opportunity of taking allotments up to five acres and small holdings, either bare—without buildings—from 1 to 50 acres in the normal case or, with buildings, from 3 acres to 50. So we are not shutting out the town worker so very much. In our desire to encourage the smallholder, we certainly have no wish to suggest that that system should be applied universally. We have no possible antagonism to farming on a large scale. We believe that, with our variations in climate and the conditions of agriculture, both small holdings and large farms can with advantage exist side by side. Agriculture is not an industry which can he built up on uniform standards; in it the mass production of the modern factory finds no place. I believe it to be to the benefit of British
agriculture that we should have a variation in the size and character of holdings, and, therefore, without lessening our desire to help the ordinary farmer, we are justified in promoting the extension of small holdings, both on grounds of social justice and as a contribution to the welfare of the community.

Sir D. NEWTON: Reference has been made to the part that local authorities are to play in the administration of this Bill. A doubt has been expressed as to what the attitude of the county councils may be. This Bill has received the anxious and careful consideration of the County Councils' Association, who feel that in it they are provided with an instrument which should make for the satisfactory solution of this difficult problem. I believe that under Clause 2 of the Bill, with the generous provision which this House is making to assist the small holdings movement, we shall find that real and substantial progress will be made. It must always be borne in mind that in settling men on the land certain conditions must be carefully observed. In the first place, the land must be suitable, and, in the second place, men must be chosen who understand agriculture and the industry of working the land. There are too many people about who believe that one has only to tickle the face of the soil to make it smile pleasantly, while in sober fact it is a hard and difficult occupation. I hope that, in putting this Bill into operation, care will be taken not to dispossess and evict men who may be cultivating the land satisfactorily, but rather that land may be chosen which comes into the market every year in most counties in large quantities and which could be acquired without eviction and disturbance and all the difficulties which arise out of eviction and disturbance. I join in wishing this Bill well, and I believe that with the hearty co-operation of the county councils it can be made a successful Measure.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have been very interested to listen to the Debate on this Bill. I do not think Members on the other side will go into the Lobby against it. They and the Liberal party, who have now disappeared in fact, are afraid to strike. One of the things that struck
me is the extraordinary demand there is for small holdings among working men in the country districts, and even in the towns. The reason for that is the very reason for which a Clause of purchase has been put into this Bill. The purchase Clause is bitterly opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They want them all to be leaseholders, and in leading strings, the subject of control, and perhaps, of despotism, on the part of a Labour county council. The reason why so many men want small holdings is that so many want to get away from the industrial tyranny to which they are subjected. Men and women have many a time said to me could they not get away to some more independent atmosphere? Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not sympathise with the smallholders because, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, "Six o'clock in the morning! It is a horrible idea that any man should get up and work so hard." That is why there is this position to-day, and this desire to prevent a man becoming an owner. The old Elizabethan theory was sound that you should have as many owners of property as possible. I would go as far as the Irish Land Act went, because I believe the soundest view is that a man should own the land he cultivates. With as many independent citizens working for themselves and as few for employers as possible is the soundest possible foundation. That does not recommend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite. If that came about they would he the only people leg on the Unemployment Bureau.

Bill react the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — HORTICULTRAL PRODUCE (SALES ON COMMISSION) BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — LEAD PAINT (PROTECTION AGAINST POISONING) BILL.

Orders of the Day — PARKS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — EPISCOPAL PENSIONS, 1926.

Major BIRCHALL: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Episcopal Pensions Measure, 1926, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
This Measure is practically non-controversial, or at any rate I have not heard of any opposition, and therefore it will not be necessary for me to detain the House for more than a few moments. The reason for the introduction of this Measure is that the present law under which Bishops receive their pensions has been a distinct hardship, and creates a distinct burden. The present law is that of 1869, under which the Archbishop and Bishops are entitled to- a pension of £2,000 a year or one-third of the official income of I he Bishopric, whichever is the greater. It is payable on incapacitation, and the money is taken from the income of the successor in the Bishopric. That has become increasingly a burden, as the income of the new Bishops is not more than half of what it was in the old days. Therefore the burden has become intolerable.
11.0 P.M.
There is also the difficulty that some Bishops refuse or are unwilling to resign owing to the fear of crippling their successors. Hon. Members may know many cases in which it is desirable that a Bishop should retire, but where it is impossible for him to do so on financial grounds. I would not give the impression that the Bishops who are on the retired list are drawing their full pensions, because it would be unfair to do so. They have Voluntarily resigned a considerable amount of their pensions; but even as it is, the pension drawn by the seven Bishops on the retired list varies from £500 to £1,500 a year. It is proposed, under the Measure, to sweep away this old system altogether, and to set up a new system of pensions based upon a contribution from every bishop—a contributory system—and the balance re-
quired will be found by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I would say at once that, under Clause 5 of the Measure, the amount to be found by the Commissioners will only be realised when the Commissioners consider that the finding of that sum will not cripple or endanger in any way the work which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to-day are doing for the poorer clergy of the country. Therefore, if this Measure passes, there is no fear that any assistance that may be given to the bishops will be at the expense of the poorer clergy; that is made perfectly clear by Clause 5 of the Measure.
The amount of the pension is to be normally 1800 a year, with three exceptions, in the case of which it will be £1,000, and, in the case of the Archbishops, £1,500. The age of retirement will be 70, or earlier in case of incapacitation. In conclusion, I would remind the House that every bishop of the 38 or 30 who at present hold office has agreed to this Measure, and has Voluntarily foregone all claim that he might have under the old Measure. They have foregone their claims to higher pensions, in the interests of the more efficient working of the whole system and in the interests of their successors in their own sees. That is a generosity which I think deserves to be publicly made known. The Measure has been carefully considered by the Joint Committee of the two Houses, who have reported in these terms:
The Ecclesiastical Committee are of opinion that it is desirable that the Measure should become law. They consider that it does not affect prejudicially the constitutional rights of any of His Majesty's subjects.

Mr. CADOGAN: I beg to second the Motion.

The remaining Government orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — FARM WORK, SCOTLAND.

CHILD EMPLOYMENT.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 27th September, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. MAXTON: There is a point that I am very anxious to raise to-night. At Question Time I put to the Secretary of State for Scotland a question asking if he had given his approval to a by-law of the Kincardineshire Education Authority permitting children 10 years of age to be employed on farm work. The answer I received was a somewhat involved one, and I did not appreciate its full significance at Question Time. I am, therefore, taking this, the earliest opportunity of getting a full explanation from some representative of the Scottish Office as to what exactly they are proposing to do in Kincardineshire. The answer I received started with a sentence which seemed very satisfactory, namely:
The answer is in the negative.
The rest of the answer, however, went on to prove that the reply was not in the negative, but that the intention of the Kincardineshire authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland, was, once the necessary formalities had been gone through, to permit children of the age of 10 years to be employed in agricultural work in Kincardineshire. We shall be prepared to. excuse the lateness of the Under-Secretary, who I sec has just arrived, if he comes forward with an adequate defence of this horrible action that his Office appears to be taking in this matter, or with a statement that they are not going to proceed any further with it. I should have thought it was impossible at this time, when there are a million and a-half adults going about unemployed, a proportion of them even in agricultural districts, that any Government would have been prepared to assent to dragging children of 10 years of age out of the schools to do hard manual labour in the fields; but as I read this answer, that is the exact thing that the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to permit. I regret very much that this should have taken place in Scotland. I do not think there can be any place in England where a similar thing is done, and I am sure this is the first step in this direction under this Tory Government in Scotland. I want to see, if I possibly can, by directing public attention and the. attention of the Scottish Office to the serious nature of the step they are taking that, if it is not stopped in this instance, the spread
of it to other parts of the country will not be permitted.
The by-law previously was that under certain conditions children of 12 years of age were permitted for certain periods to take part in seasonal agricultural work. I think even that was quite wrong. The School life of the average child of the working class from five to 14 years of age is too short already without it being eaten into by arrangements of this description.
I know education authorities in Scotland have power to grant such exemptions, but I know in Glasgow under the education authority no permission would be given for children to engage in employment under the age of 14 during hours when the schools were actually open. Permission under these by-laws is given in Glasgow for children to do spare time tasks, such as delivering newspapers or milk before or after School hours, but even when that limited permission is given the education authority insist that every child who is going to do that must have a permit from them, he must have a certificate from his Schoolmaster to show that his educational attainments are of an advancement suitable to his age, the School medical officer conducts an examination to see that he is physically fit, and then the educational authority insists that the person who employs him shall provide him with suitable covering, waterproof or something of that kind, as a protection against the weather. Here we have in Kincardineshire the suggestion made by the Scottish Secretary, as this answer states, provided the ordinary procedure is complied with relating to a few advertisements in the local papers, that he should allow children of 10 year, of age—imagine the shame of it—to go into the fields to do hard agricultural work. If it was in their leisure time it would be a shame to cat into their play hours, but this proposal permits farmers to take the children from School and turn them out into the fields to do potato lifting and jobs of that description.
I am not going to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give me his personal opinion on this. It would finish his career on the Front Bench if he gave his view on the course of conduct the Government are permitting. I am asking him to give me some official justification for this at a time when children leaving
School have to go for months and sometimes years without being able to get into a job. What possible justification is there for driving out the kiddies at 10 and making them wealth producers? It is shocking and disgraceful. I do not know any defence, but I should like to hear what the hon. and gallant Gentlenman has to say. I want to say that I invited the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make a statement upon another matter, upon which I am sure he would have made a reasonable speech, but, ha view of the lateness of the hour, I did not consider that I was justified in raising it.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): acknowledge gratefully that the hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his intention to raise this matter, and I apologise to him for the unintentional discourtesy of being a moment or two late in entering the House. I am not going to engage in a discussion on the general principle which this matter raises. The Scottish Office to-day, in the answer given by the Lord Advocate, pointed out that in this matter they are merely allowing a case to be stated for subsequent decision by the Secretary of State for Scotland. All that the present position amounts to is that the statutory education authority, which is specifically responsible for education in Scotland and not as in England, a committee of the county council; an authority who are elected with no other aim and object than that of the education of the children of the county, put up a case to my right hon. Friend for allowing certain seasonal work being Voluntarily engaged in by a certain section of the School population. My right hon. Friend, in correspondence, pointed out the objections to the course which it was intended to pursue, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, after pointing out this objection, has allowed the matter, so to speak, to go for proof.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to proceed if I have been misinformed by this answer. It says that the Secretary for Scotland is prepared to sanction that by-law prescribing the minimum age of 10 years for seasonal employment, subject to review in the event of an advertisement in the Press revealing a serious body of objection to it. It is
not a question of stating a case; it is a statement that he is prepared to sanction the employment of the children.

Major ELLIOT: I think my hon. Friend and myself are laying emphasis on two, separate parts of the sentence. My hon. Friend lays emphasis on the first part, that the Secretary of State for Scotland would be prepared to sanction a by-law prescribing a minimum age of 10 years, whereas I lay emphasis on the second part, "subject to review in the event of advertisement of the proposed by-law revealing a, serious body of objection to it." I say that the case has been put up to the Secretary of State for Scotland by the body who are responsible for education in the county, and my right hon. Friend says he will allow the matter to. be canvassed in the columns of the Press. of the district. If this canvass reveals a serious body of objection to it, he will not be prepared to sanction the proposed by-law.
I do think that on that the Secretary of State for Scotland has a perfect right to say that he has allowed the matter to go to proof, that he has allowed the matter to be considered in public and that he has intimated that if no serious body of objection is revealed by public advertisement and discussion in the public Press to the proposed by-laws, then, with the combined sanction of the statutory authority and with the additional sanction of no body of objection having been revealed it would be very difficult for him, not merely as Secretary of State for Scotland but as the authority responsible for agriculture and responsible for the carrying out of the will of the people, democratically expressed, to put up an objection to such a proposal merely from the official point of view.

Mr. J. HUDSON: What about the parents?

Major ELLIOT: The parents elect the education authority for the specific purpose of looking after the interests of the children. Suppose for some reason the attention of the parents of the children has not been drawn to this proposal. The advertisements of it in the public Press, and the discussion which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has drawn to it by discussion in this House will surely ensure the full can-
vassing of this proposal before the responsible people, the statutory authorities, and, what is still more important, the parents who are responsible for the upbringing and education of these children.
As to the general question whether any of these young persons should be allowed or should not be allowed to take part in seasonal employment in agriculture, that would lead us into a very wide Debate, upon which it would be wrong of me to embark at this time. The hon. Member raised instances such as the delivery of milk and the delivery of newspapers They are not exactly germane to the present discussion. These merely mechanical occupations, as the hon. Member himself would be the first to admit, are not in any way comparable to certain seasonal agricultural occupations. One of the great criticisms which is brought against the present education system is that by carrying it out as a mechanical system alike for country and town it gives but little opportunity for seasonal occupations in agriculture which afford to the country dweller opportunities for employment which are not in any way comparable—[Interruption]. Hon. Members interrupt, but this is not a mere quibble. The delivery of newspapers in the morning and the delivery of milk in the morning are occupations which are not in any way comparable to that of the country population taking part in the seasonal flush of labour which does occur during the Harvest period in the countryside. I am not willing to debate that between 11.20 and 11.30 at night in this House. Let us take it that the general question of agriculture and the seasonal occupation of the countryside child at certain times in the occupations of the countryside are held over for discussion at another time. The junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) has frequently held up to our admiration the agricultural system of the State of Denmark, and he has commended it to the attention of the authorities, both agricultural and educational, in this country. I think he will he willing to admit that in the State of Denmark—

Mr. N. MACLEAN: There is something rotten now in the State of Denmark!

Major ELLIOT: It may be that there is something rotten in the State of Denmark. Even so, the State of Denmark, rottenness and all, has been commended to our attention by the hon. Member for Dundee.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Have I ever said that in Denmark there were children taken from School at the age of 10?

Major ELLIOT: Let me point out to the hon. Member for Dundee and also the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), win) represent two great agricultural centres, that Mr. Duncan, of the Farm Servants' Union, has pointed out repeatedly in the columns of his own newspaper that one of the things in the State of Denmark is that children are allowed at an earlier age and for a longer period to be away for seasonal occupations than would be permitted in this country. I point that out as an indication of the fact that there are questions involved which cannot be discussed in a matter of ten minutes, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. MacLAREN: You should not be so provocative.

Major ELLIOT: I do not think the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) would say that anything I have said is provocative.

Mr. STEPHEN: You are only playing into his hands by interrupting him, and allowing him to get off the point.

Major ELLIOT: We all know the strong concentration which is the peculiar prerogative of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). The extreme concentration and the unique perception of the point, which is the prerogative of the hon. Member, is not the privilege of all of us. Let us say this about the education authority of Kincardineshire. It put forward a case to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State said: "Although this case has been put forward on the full responsibility of your statutory position, I do not agree with it." The statutory authority then returned to the discussion, and said it wished to press the point, whereupon the Secretary of State said, "I will consider your case after it has been discussed in the columns of the public Press." It was then up to the opponents of the proposal to bring forward their criticisms. The
whole question of seasonal occupation in agricultural areas is a matter which education authorities of great eminence have put forward, but I am not going "to discuss that now. The case now remains for discussion in the public Press, and it is as reasonable and as unprejudiced a forum as you can find anywhere, not excluding the House of Commons. The Secretary of State points out that any decision he may come to will remain for criticism in the House of Commons, it may be for reconsideration, and he will be prepared to defend any decision to which lie may ultimately come in the House of Commons.

Mr. MACLEAN: You have five minutes yet.

Major ELLIOT: I am prepared to sit down here and now if there are any criticisms which the hon. Member would like to make. I should like to hear them. I think I have stated a case to which no hon. Member can take exception. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) represents another agricultural centre.

Mr. MACLEAN: Hon. Members on the other side of the House show their ignorance of the industrial position of Govan by forgetting that half of it is agricultural. I have at least five farms in my constituency, and the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) has not even a dairy in his.

Major ELLIOT: I was giving credit to the constituency of Govan for being an agricultural constituency, and the hon. Member himself reinforces my argument. The procedure outlined by the Secretary of State for Scotland is a public and democratic procedure to which no one can take exception. The decision, when it is come to, may be a matter for further review, but the procedure suggested is one to which right hon. Gentlemen or hon. Gentlemen in any part of the House cannot possibly take exception.

Mr. STEPHEN: I think the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has made a most sorrowful exhibition of himself. As one of his colleagues who has some respect for him, I am very sorry indeed that he has been put into the position of defending the action of the Secretary of
State for Scotland. What is revealed in the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland is not any consideration for the statutory authority of an education authority in any part of Scotland, but the abject and cowardly position that has been taken up by the Secretary of State for Scotland and which has been defended by the hon. and gallant Member to-night. If there could be anything more cowardly than the answer that has been given I would like to see it. The Secretary of State for Scotland has not the courage to stand up to the people in Kincardineshire who have asked to be allowed to employ children of 10 for work in their fields, and because he has not had that courage, he states that he will be willing to listen to any objections that may be put forward. Anxious to find a way out, he has not the courage to tell this education authority that he is not going to allow. this slavery to be imposed upon these children.
The hon. and gallant Member made play with the fact that I had, possibly, a little wider education than he has had. He has done that on previous occasions, but at least that wider education would make me always protest against children of 10 years of age being sent to work in the fields, and it would certainly prohibit me from standing anywhere to defend such an action. I am ashamed to-night of the words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in defending the action of his chief and his Government in this matter, and the action of this education authority. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may have been impressed by my concentration in a way different. from other Members of the House but, at least, the people of Kelvin-grove will know the kind of Member they have and the people of Scotland will know the kind of Government they have. That Government, having imposed eight hours on the miners are now going to put children of 10 years of age into this most hard employment. This is to be done by hon. and gallant Gentlemen who themselves would not allow their own children at the age of 18 to undergo what they are ready to impose on the working class children of Scotland. I welcome the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have to answer for this matter in Kelvingrove. I am sure at no distant date, when a General
Election does come, it will make that Division a certainty for the Socialist party in Glasgow. It will also mean the sweeping out of the country districts in Scotland of people like the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is signalising his
accession to that office in this most miserable way.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, ME. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution, of the House of 27th September.